Hyde Housing Association Limited (202013293)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013293

Hyde Housing Association Limited

23 September 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint refers to the landlord’s handling of:
1. the repairs needed to the resident’s back door.
2. the resident’s concerns about a tenancy warning letter being issued.
3. the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a house. The complaint was raised by the resident and, at times, by her representative. For clarity, both the resident and her representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
The landlord’s repair records show that a repair order was raised on 27 February 2021 as repairs were required to the patio door at the resident’s property. It is unclear at this stage specifically what repairs were required. The repairs were reported as completed on 31 July 2020
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 August 2020 to raise a complaint for the following reasons:
1. She said that her back door had not shut properly for around four months and she was not satisfied with the standard of repairs which had been completed previously. She said that she had raised this several times and on three occasions contractors had come to the property and said the door was fixed, or that they needed to order more parts. Contractors had also changed the glass in the door which was not the issue she had reported. She said that she had called the previous week and asked for a contractor to attend and she was told that she would receive a call back but never did.
2. She advised that the lock had now fallen off the door and was concerned that she and her family had been unable to secure their property. She added that she had experienced domestic violence in the past and was concerned about her safety. She had called again that day and was told that the security issue would need to be addressed straight away. However, when she was put through to the relevant team, the member of staff had hung up the phone and not called her back. The resident attached photos of the lock mechanism which was no longer attached to the door.
The resident sent a further email on 19 August 2020 to raise her complaint again as she had not received a response.
The landlord called the resident on 25 August 2020 to discuss the complaint. The resident confirmed that she had experienced issues with the back door for around five years. She noted that four months ago, she had not been able to close the back door, a contractor had attended and said that they would need to order more parts but she had heard nothing since. She struggled to close the door as it was not aligned properly and it took her around ten attempts to get it to shut. The hinges had been adjusted previously but the resident said that they appeared to be corroded and needed replacing. She expressed dissatisfaction that only quick fixes had been done and there had been no permanent solution.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 August 2020 and confirmed that following a phone call, it would now investigate the complaint and provide a response by 22 September 2020. It added that an engineer had attended the previous week, however it noted that the resident still struggled to close the door.
On 15 September 2020 the resident reported that a key had snapped in the lock on the back door. The landlord’s records show that a contractor attended on the same day and reported the repair as completed.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 23 September 2020 it was reported that contractors had attended the property for a second time as a key have been snapped in the lock of the back door and that there was evidence to suggest that the door had been tampered with. The contractor believed that the door had been repeatedly slammed and confirmed that the door handle had been changed on one visit.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 30 September 2020 and explained the following:
1. It provided a record of events and said that the contractors had attended the property on 31 July 2020. They overhauled the doors, re-racked them, renewed the handles and replaced the blown glass unit. The resident had then reported that her back door was broken on 10 August 2020. An appointment was booked for 13 August 2020, but the contractors could not gain access to the property despite calling. The appointment was re-booked for 17 August 2020. Following the appointment, the contractors reported that the lock had been tampered with and the screws on the lock had been removed. They confirmed that the hinges did not need replacing. They also reported that the door had repeatedly been opened, closed and locked to confirm that there were no further issues.
2. Due to the ongoing issues, the landlord had attended the property on 1 September 2020 with the contractors. It had investigated the back door and hinges and found that there was no fault. The lock on the back door was changed at this point as a key had been snapped in the lock. It was reported that during the visit the operative experienced erratic and unreasonable behaviour. The contractor reported that a man at the resident’s property became annoyed as the operative did not want to purchase the power tool batteries he was trying to sell.
3. On 9 September 2020, the contractors reported that they received a phone call from a man who was abusive and shouting at staff members. He stated that the contractors needed to change the hinges on the resident’s door. The contractors confirmed that they had previously changed the lock due to a key being snapped and the man confirmed that he had broken the key in the lock.
4. The contractors concluded that there were no issues with the hinges on the back door and these would not be replaced. The landlord advised that there was no evidence to show that it had delayed the repairs and said it could not uphold the resident’s complaint. It confirmed that the resident could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
The resident responded to the landlord on 6 October 2020 and explained that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She felt that the contractors had blamed her rather than admitting they were at fault. She said that her friend had not tried to sell power tools to the contractor and added that they did not own power tools. Her friend had asked to use the contractor’s screwdriver and the contractor had agreed. She said that the door had not been tampered with and she had not removed the screws. She added that the lock had fallen out of the door due to not being fixed in place. She had also previously been told that the hinges for the door were faulty and would need to be replaced. She was dissatisfied that the contractors had chosen to be rude about her and her family rather than address the door repair. She disagreed with the landlord’s version of events and asked that the landlord sent a different contractor to her property for any future repairs.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on the same day and explained the following:
1. She said that prior to the appointment on 31 July 2020, she had questioned why the glass in the door needed to be replaced. She was told that the glass in the door was heavy and was causing stress on the hinge. She said that the glass was not damaged and the handle and door lock were not replaced on this occasion. She advised that the contractor had adjusted the original door lock and handle and it was screwed back in place with the original screws. She was not convinced that the door could be closed properly but the operative had assured this was possible.
2. She added that the landlord had sent a letter on 25 August 2020, outlining the issues with the patio doors. She explained that she had met with the landlord on 1 September 2020 and the contractors were not in attendance. As such, it was not possible that the lock was changed during that visit. She confirmed that a key had not been snapped in the lock at this stage.
3. She was provided with an update regarding the door repairs on 7 September 2020 over the phone and was advised that the landlord had asked for the hinges to be covered. She added that when the door was inspected, the landlord had advised that the hinges needed replacing. The landlord responded by saying that this decision would be left to the contractors and it had asked for an alternative contractor to attend at the resident’s request.
4. She confirmed that the original contractors changed the handle and lock on the door on 9 September 2020 and that the contractors had carried out several repairs, apart from the replacement of the hinges. She did not agree with the landlord’s claim that there had been erratic and abusive behaviour as she had been alone for the visits on 17 August 2020 and 1 September 2020. She confirmed that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 November 2020 and explained that it had received a complaint from its contractors who were carrying out repairs to the resident’s property. They had reported that the resident’s son was tampering with the doors inside the property. The landlord advised that tampering with its property and causing damage would be considered a breach of tenancy. It said that the behaviour must stop immediately. The landlord stated that if the behaviour continued it would begin enforcement action against the resident to bring the tenancy to an end. It asked the resident to consider the letter as a warning and to ensure that it did not happen again.
The resident responded on 7 November 2020 and disputed the claims made by the landlord’s contractors. She said that the claims were baseless and asked the landlord how the claim had been verified. She noted that both her toilet door and rear door had been repaired recently. She felt that the contractor had retaliated to her complaint by making false allegations. She was concerned that she had been threatened and that her tenancy could be ended because of the false claims and asked the landlord to respond.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 8 November 2020. She said that she had previously responded to the landlord’s stage one complaint response but this had not been acknowledged by the landlord. She added that she had not had any form of direct communication with the landlord’s contractors since 9 September 2020 when they made their last visit to the property. She said that the letter she had received which threatened her tenancy caused extreme distress. She did not feel that the landlord had satisfactorily investigated the matter and was concerned that her tenancy was now at risk due to unfounded counter claims by the contractors. She asked the landlord to withdraw the warning she had received.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 19 March 2021 and asked it to provide a stage two complaint response within the timescales set out in its complaint policy. The Ombudsman sent a further email to the landlord on 8 April 2021 as the resident had not received a response. The landlord was asked to provide its stage two complaint response within five working days and no later than 15 April 2021.
The landlord responded to the Ombudsman on 14 April 2021 and said that it was reviewing the resident’s complaint at stage two of its complaints process. It confirmed that it would address the delay in responding within the complaint response. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 16 April 2020 and asked it to provide a stage two complaint response within five days as it had not previously included a timescale for the response.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 21 April 2021 and acknowledged that the resident had asked for her complaint to be escalated in November 2020 but did not receive a response. It explained that it would not be changing its original decision as it had checked the details of the resident’s complaint thoroughly and responded to all the points she had raised. It added that the resident had not provided any additional information to consider or evidence to show that its original decision was inaccurate. It acknowledged that it had not communicated with the resident following her request to escalate the complaint. in view of this, it apologised to the resident and offered £50 compensation for any inconvenience caused.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She felt that the landlord’s stage two response was generic and made no reference to the correspondence she had submitted. She said that she had spent a great deal of time trying to resolve the complaint and had lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to handle her concerns. She said that the dates provided by the landlord for several repair jobs were inaccurate and her responses to the stage one complaint response were ignored. She asked that the landlord ensures that she had no further personal contact with the contractor involved, it withdrew the tenancy warning letter and that it acknowledged that it had not acted in line with its complaints procedure.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the repairs needed to the resident’s back door.

The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord would be responsible for maintaining the external doors of the property. The resident would be responsible for reporting repair issues or faults for which the landlord is responsible for fixing. The resident would also be responsible for carrying out minor repairs to the property, including replacing keys and door locks, providing extra locks and gaining access if locks fail or they lock themselves out. The landlord’s repairs policy states that repair appointments are categorised into several categories. Emergency repairs, which may threaten health, safety or security, should be made safe within 24 hours, after which follow-on appointments may be required. Non-urgent repairs should be completed within twenty working days.
On 10 August 2020 the resident reported that she had been unable to secure her back door for four months and that the lock mechanism had now fallen out of the door. The landlord’s records show that it had initially raised for the resident’s patio door to be repaired on 27 February 2020 and contractors attended on 31 July 2020 where they overhauled the doors, re-racked them, renewed the handles and replaced the blown unit. The resident has said that the handle and door lock were not replaced on this occasion and she was not certain the door would close although the contractors confirmed that the door could be secured. The records also show that when the resident first reported the issues with her door that a contractor attended to make safe the door but required further parts to carry out a lasting repair.
There was likely to have been some delay during between March and July 2020 due to the lockdown restrictions in place because of Covid-19. At this stage, government guidance meant that landlords should only complete emergency repairs and non-urgent repairs should be put on hold This delay would be outside of the landlord’s control and was, therefore, reasonable given that there is no evidence to suggest that the door was left unsecured during this time, although it was in need of repair. As such, there is no evidence to suggest that the door had been left unsecured for four months at the time of the resident’s complaint on 10 August 2020.
An appointment was booked for 13 August 2020 following the resident’s further concerns that the lock had fallen out and her door was not secure on 10 August 2020. It is noted that this was outside of the landlord’s timescales for handling an emergency repair, however, it was reasonable that this report was not picked up immediately as the resident’s contact was raised as a complaint rather than a report of an emergency repair. It is understandable that the resident may have been frustrated that her previous phone call to the landlord’s repairs team had been cut off. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had deliberately hung up.
The appointment was re-booked for 17 August 2020 at the resident’s request. Following the appointment, the contractors reported that the lock had been tampered with and the screws on the lock had been removed. They confirmed that the hinges did not need replacing. They also reported that the door had repeatedly been opened, closed and locked to confirm that there were no further issues. It is noted that the resident denies that anyone had tampered with the lock.
As there are conflicting accounts of what happened and a lack of clear evidence to support either account, it is impossible for the Ombudsman as an independent and impartial arbiter to establish whether the lock was tampered with. Ultimately, in line with the tenancy agreement, minor repairs such as those needed to a lock would generally be the resident’s responsibility to resolve and the landlord would not be obliged to carry out this repair. On this occasion it was, however, reasonable for the landlord to take responsibility for securing the lock following the resident’s report that it had fallen out of the door given that there had been previous issues with the structure and alignment of the door.
The resident believes that the hinges on her back door should be replaced. The landlord has relied on the findings of its contractors, who deemed that the back door had been successfully repaired and was not in a condition that warranted the hinges to be replaced. The landlord was entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence, aside from the resident’s comments to show that the hinges needed to be replaced. Accordingly, the decision to not replace the hinges on the back door was reasonable in the circumstances.
It is noted that the resident has said that the allegations made by the contractors were incorrect and that the landlord’s record of events, including the dates and times repairs were carried out had some inaccuracies. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on whether there had or had not been abusive behaviour and whilst we do not doubt the resident’s testimony, in the absence of any independent witnesses we are not able to substantiate her claim that this was not the case. Furthermore, whilst the resident claims that there were inaccuracies in the landlord’s report, this did not significantly affect the outcome of the overall complaint as the landlord attended the property within reasonable timescales and the issues with the door lock would ultimately be the resident’s responsibility to resolve.
There has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs needed to the resident’s back door. There is no evidence to suggest that there was an unreasonable delay in carrying out repairs to the back door and it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors who concluded that there were no issues with the hinges of the door and that they did not need changing. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm whether the door is now closing as it should and whether there is any further issues with the alignment of the door. The landlord should address any further concerns in line with its repairs policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a tenancy warning letter being issued.

In her communication with this Service and the landlord, the resident raised concern that the tenancy warning letter sent by the landlord on 4 November 2020 was based on false claims that her son had been tampering with the doors in her property. She asked the landlord to respond to her concerns on 7 November 2020 and raised these concerns again in her complaint escalation on 8 November 2020.
The landlord would have been expected to respond to the resident’s concerns and either address this matter within the current complaint or raise a new complaint about its decision to issue a tenancy warning because this did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint about the repairs to her back door. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord has responded to the resident’s concerns or communicated, despite having the opportunity to do so both informally and in its stage two complaint response.
The tenancy warning letter was understandably distressing for the resident to receive. However, the landlord has a responsibility for protecting its staff and contractors from unreasonable behaviour and also for preventing damage to the properties it manages. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to issue a tenancy warning in response to its contractors’ reports of abusive behaviour and deliberate damage to the doors in the property. It is acknowledged that the resident denies these allegations and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out an investigation in response to her concerns, including speaking to the parties involved and advising the resident of the findings of its investigation.
Therefore, there has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about a tenancy warning letter being issued. The landlord should offer compensation to the resident as detailed below, for the inconvenience caused by its lack of communication regarding this issue and failure to address her concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that the landlord has a two-stage formal complaints procedure. At stage one, the landlord should respond within a maximum of 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. At stage two, the complaint should be reviewed and a response should be provided within a maximum of 20 working days. If there is likely to be a delay in issuing a response at either stage, the landlord would be expected to inform the resident, explain the delay and provide a new timescale.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that the resident does not have to use the word “complaint” for their communication to be treated as such. It is enough for the resident to contact the landlord to express their dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions or inaction. The landlord should take appropriate steps to resolve the issue for residents as early as possible and should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
In this case the resident raised her initial complaint on 10 August 2020. She then raised the same complaint again on 19 August 2020 as she had not received an acknowledgement or response. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 30 September 2020. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in addressing the complaint raised on 10 August 2020 in its complaint responses but provided evidence to this Service which confirms that it had received the resident’s correspondence on this date. It also failed to acknowledge the additional delay in providing a stage one complaint response outside of its twenty working day timescale.
The resident emailed the landlord twice on 6 October 2020 and expressed dissatisfaction with its stage one complaint response. Whilst the resident did not explicitly say that she wished to escalate the complaint at this stage, she advised that its response was unsatisfactory and explained the reasons she believed this. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond and confirm whether the resident wished to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process as she remained dissatisfied. However, there is no record of communication until 4 November 2020, when the landlord issued a tenancy warning letter to the resident. Following this the resident expressly asked for the complaint to be escalated on 8 November 2020. A stage two response was issued to the resident on 21 April 2021 following intervention by the Ombudsman.
There was a significant delay in providing a stage two response to the resident and the landlord did not provide an explanation for this delay. In its stage two response it acknowledged the delay and offered £50 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused. The stage two complaint response failed to address the resident’s concerns about the differing accounts of when repairs were carried out and the contractor’s allegations that she and her family members had been abusive to staff.
The compensation offered by the landlord of £50 for the delay in issuing a stage two response is not proportionate to the further service failures identified. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests awards of between £50-£250 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. In this case, the delays and poor communication did not significantly affect the outcome of the complaint, but these errors did have an impact on the resident. Although the compensation offered by the landlord is in the right range, the amount offered is not reasonable as it should be in the higher part of the range rather than the lower part given the additional service failures identified, as explained above.
In summary, there has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. The landlord failed to address the resident’s initial complaint which led to the stage one complaint response being issued significantly outside of its policy timescales. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s dissatisfaction on 6 October 2020 or escalate the complaint at this stage, following which, there was a significant delay in issuing a stage two response. The landlord has not offered compensation which would be considered proportionate to the level of inconvenience experienced by the resident

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs needed to the resident’s back door.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about a tenancy warning letter being issued.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Any delay to non-urgent repairs between February 2020 and July 2020 are likely to have been outside of the landlord’s control because of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. There is no evidence to suggest that there was an unreasonable delay in carrying out repairs to the back door and it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors who concluded that there were no issues with the hinges of the door and that they did not need changing.
It was reasonable for the landlord to issue a tenancy warning letter in response to its contractors’ reports of abusive behaviour and damage to the property by family members of the resident. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it communicated with the resident regarding her concerns about being issued a tenancy warning letter, nor has it addressed this aspect in its stage two complaint response. This lack of communication would have caused unnecessary additional distress to the resident.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s initial complaint which led to the stage one complaint response being issued significantly outside of its policy timescales. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s dissatisfaction on 6 October 2020 or escalate the complaint at this stage, following which, there was a significant delay in issuing a stage two response.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:

The landlord is to pay the resident £250, comprised of:

a. £100 for inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to address the resident’s concerns about the tenancy warning letter.

b. £150 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. (the £50 offered by the landlord previously can be deducted from the total compensation, if this has already been paid).

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm whether the door is now closing as it should and whether there is any further issues with the alignment of the door. The landlord should address any further concerns in line with its repairs policy.
If possible, the landlord should use a different contractor to carry out repairs at the resident’s property going forward. If this is not possible, the landlord should explain to the resident why it is not possible.
It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that complaints are handled in line with the timescales laid out in the landlord’s policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.