Hyde Housing Association Limited (202016491)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016491

Hyde Housing Association Limited

1 March 2023

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Requests for sound insulation to be installed in the property.
    2. Reports of repairs to the property.
    3. The Ombudsman had also considered the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 2002 and lives in a two-bedroom semi-detached house with her grown up daughter. The resident states she has multiple health issues, although the landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for her. The property next door is privately owned and was rented to the local authority as temporary accommodation to a family with young children.
  2. The resident initially contacted the landlord in March 2021 concerning a crack in a window which the landlord had failed to repair. The Ombudsman then advised the landlord that the resident was unhappy about its handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and request for insulation or sound proofing to be installed at the property on 22 April 2021.  A complaint was submitted on 20 May 2021 and the resident was advised to contact the local authority about the ASB, as the neighbours were not tenants of the landlord. A surveyor was sent to inspect the bathroom where the resident had reported particular noise transference between the properties. Various other repairs were identified by the surveyor in June 2021 including cracks around doors and windows. The landlord planned to commission a structural survey from an outside company.
  3. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 2 July 2021 apologised for the lack of communication around the repairs and offered £125 for delays in the response about the ASB and the complaint. There had also been a delay in the ASB team making contact due to the volumes of work since the Covid pandemic.  A structural survey was carried out in October 2021 when further repairs were identified. The resident escalated the complaint on 11 October 2021 as repairs were still outstanding.
  4. The landlord issued its final response on 26 October 2021 and repeated that it had no jurisdiction over the neighbours in respect to ASB, and the resident must approach the local authority.  The landlord apologised that the repairs had not been completed, in part due to an error by the outside surveyors, and that further work was needed, so the surveyor would continue to chase this. The resident reported that she had no contact from the surveyor, and she wanted the landlord to check the noise levels as there was no insulation and it was affecting her health.
  5. The resident is unhappy as she believes the landlord should have considered sound insulation measures for her property. She is also unhappy with the  progress of the repairs, which she attributes to poor communication from the landlord’s surveyors.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy does not apply to reports received about residents with no relationship to the landlord.  It follows that this investigation does not consider what action was taken by the landlord under the terms of the ASB policy in response to the resident’s ASB reports , but whether it responded to the resident’s reports of noise transference appropriately.
  2. It is understood that since the final complaint response, the alleged perpetrators of the ASB complaint have moved away, but another tenant has moved in, and noise problems continue. The resident has advised that local authority Environmental Health inspectors have visited the two properties and conducted their own tests and concluded that the noise was normal ‘living noise’. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter as a complaint then she would need to raise a complaint to the local authority.

Assessment

Noise insulation

  1. Information provided online says that the landlord is responsible for structural repairs to walls, floors and ceilings internally, and externally to maintain doors, window frames and sills. It says that emergency repairs will be responded to within four hours,  and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days.
  2. In this instance, the resident first raised the issue of insulation with this Service, who advised the landlord, in April 2021. The landlord’s own complaint investigation form records that the resident had already made contact regarding this in March 2021. The resident has advised, and has provided photographs to show that she had attached duvets and other items to the party wall in an attempt to reduce the sound transference between the properties. The resident also described being self-conscious as she felt she could be heard in her own bathroom and was aware of the sound of the neighbour’s toilet flushing.  The resident has advised that the landlord has recently installed a quieter toilet in the property.
  3. In the initial inspection request to the surveyor on 9 June 2021, which was almost three months after the matter was first raised by the resident, the landlord noted that the surveyor was to ‘inspect bathroom’. No further details were given, but following the inspection on 22 June 2021, the communication log notes that the surveyor advised on the phone that the resident had not mentioned the bathroom when he visited. What would appear to be complaints team staff noted that they had sent the surveyor details of the complaint and would await a response as to what action would be taken.
  4. The surveyor’s feedback on 28 June 2021 made no mention of insulation or sound proofing issues, but instead focused on cracks and mould, which are covered below.
  5. There is no evidence of a response from the landlord to the resident’s request for sound insulation to be installed at the property. This is despite it being raised many times by the resident beginning with the online complaint form on 17 March 2021 and the Ombudsman defining her complaint as such in its communication with the landlord from April 2021 onwards. The landlord had noted the issue on its complaint investigation form so was aware of the need to include it. The complaint responses discuss the ASB and the repairs (most of which were identified by the surveyor on his visit which was arranged to inspect the cracked window and sound proofing in the bathroom) but not the sound transference.
  6. The online complaint form on 17 March 2021 may not have been the correct route for the resident to request sound insulation, but there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took any steps to respond to the issue .
  7. In May 2022 the resident advised that the noise problems continued. It seems that both properties were inspected by the local authority Environmental  Health department which deemed sound between the properties to be ‘normal living noise’ levels. The resident stated that the previous tenants had left, but there was still unacceptable noise from the house next door.
  8.  Whilst it is appreciated that there may be no action that the landlord can take to reduce the sound transfer in the property, the landlord failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s request about soundproofing/insulation over a considerable period of time.
  9. The resident also raised the issue of a mutual exchange, as a direct consequence of the noise, in June 2021. The resident stated that she had requested forms, but an officer noted that they could see nothing about this on the landlord’s system and also emailed a colleague to alert them to this. There is no evidence that this request was ever taken further.
  10. The landlord did correctly signpost the resident to the local authority when it spoke with her on 2 June 2021, as  its ASB policy does not cover those who are not the landlord’s own tenants. This advice came after a delay, but the landlord has paid compensation for this along with compensation for complaint handling delay, which is discussed below.
  11. It is fair in all the circumstances that the landlord pay compensation in respect of its failure to respond to the resident’s requests about sound insulation at the property.
  12. In this instance, the sum of £100 would reflect the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure over a considerable period of time to respond to the resident’s requests for sound insulation in the property.

Repairs 

  1. The landlord is responsible for structural repairs to walls, floors and ceilings internally, and externally to maintain doors, window frames and sills. It says that emergency repairs will be responded to within four hours,  and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days.
  2. In this case, the resident reported a spontaneous crack appearing in a window which meant she was unable to close an air vent, in March 2021. However, she reported the window to this Service, rather than her landlord. The Ombudsman advised the resident how to complain to the landlord, and the repair log shows this was done on 22 March 2021.
  3. Correspondence from the resident to the landlord during the following months was in respect of the noise from the next-door neighbours, rather than the crack in the window. The surveyor was not instructed until 9 June 2021, when  he was asked to inspect the bathroom. Prior to this, the only issues relating to the bathroom that are recorded as being raised by the resident were the noise transference issues.  The surveyor visited on 22 June 2021 and noted cracks in walls, and around windows and doors., and mould on the wall and ceiling in the bathroom. The surveyor advised the resident that these would not be quick repairs and that an outside surveyor would be required to provide a structural survey.  The first stage complaint response said the surveyor would arrange for contractors to carry out a mould wash and treatment in the bathroom and complete repairs to the broken window.
  4. There was then some delay in the external surveyor responding and the resident reports that she was not kept updated by the landlord during this time. There is evidence of her chasing and internal chasing from the landlord and as a result the resident escalated her complaint in October 2021. The surveyor maintains that he was in contact with the resident although there is no evidence to support any contact from the surveyor during 2021.
  5. The final complaint response on 26 October 2021 apologised that the repairs were not completed yet. The third-party surveyor had attended on 3 September 2021 although no report has been seen by this Service to indicate what was found to be the problem, or what the solution would be in terms of structural repairs. An appointment was made for 13 September 2021 when contractors arrived but had no access. Work then started on 8 October 2021, but it became clear that further work was required, and contractors would need to return. The landlord said it would continue to chase the contractors.
  6. Since the final response, the landlord issued an apology on 21 December 2021 that the work had not been completed. On 11 January 2022, the resident advised that a surveyor had been but she did not know when the rest of the repairs would be done. The landlord’s repair log spreadsheet shows the repair of the double glazed unit was completed on 1 November 2021 and the concrete lintel repair job was closed on 19 January 2022 although an email from the surveyor gave the date this was to be done as 11 February 2022. This may refer to another lintel as the location is not given. Although the resident was in contact with this Service in March 2022 regarding the noise, no further mention was made of the repairs, so this investigation assumes they were completed satisfactorily as shown in the repair log.
  7. No reference was made in the stage two response to the delay in the repairs being completed. The resident maintains that contact from the landlord during this time was poor and this Service has seen no evidence of the landlord’s contact during this time. The repair to the window was reported in March 2021, and completed, it appears, in November 2021. The further issues identified by the surveyor in June 2021, appear to have been completed in February 2022.
  8. It is appreciated that the landlord’s surveyor needed to instruct an outside surveyor, and once work started, it was found to be more complex than first realised. There was also one occasion when the contractors could not gain access, although the details are disputed by the resident. However, the delay of over six months for both the window and the lintel to be repaired without any explanation from the landlord as to the specific reasons, seems excessive.  In the case of the cracked window which the resident said had caused her to be unable to shut the air vent which was letting the cold in, there is no information as to whether that was resolved before the whole unit was replaced. The question was asked by landlord staff to the surveyor after his initial visit to the property, but there is no response evidenced as to whether he was able to close the vent.
  9. Therefore, a compensation award of a further £200 in respect of the landlord’s failure to appropriately respond to the resident’s repair request, would seem appropriate here. This would reflect that the landlord failed to recognise the maladministration which adversely affected the resident, and had not put things right.

Complaint handling 

  1. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy effective August 2019, says at paragraph 9.2 that in most cases, residents should expect a full response within 20 working days at each stage of the complaint process. Paragraph 11 says compensation may be offered when the landlord has failed to deliver a service to the advertised standard.
  2. In this case, the landlord was advised by this Service of the resident’s wish to complain about the ASB and noise insulation on 22 April 2021. Later notes by the landlord indicate that the resident had already completed a complaint form regarding the insulation on 17 March 2021, and the ASB on 16 April 2021. The stage one complaint response was not issued until 2 July 2021. That response acknowledged the delay in the ASB issue being progressed, and further down the letter, in the complaint itself being investigated.
  3. The landlord offered £125 compensation and said that as government lockdown guidelines eased and volumes of work were decreasing, it would respond to ASB cases and complaints as soon as it could. The resident was happy to accept this, and later said she was not looking for more compensation, but for the work to be completed. The sum offered was not assigned separately for the delay in the ASB response and the actual complaint. However, the compensation for the delay in the initial response to the two matters, when considered together, appears fair in all the circumstances.
  4. The response from the landlord concerning the delay was reasonable. It acknowledged the delay and the learning from this, and how it hoped to improve the service given in the future. The landlord had also provided a holding response so the resident was informed of the reasons for the delay and when the response would be issued. The sum offered is within the guidelines used by the Ombudsman for cases where there is maladministration which adversely affected the resident but where there was no permanent impact. Given this, the landlord has provided reasonable redress for this element of the complaint, prior to the complaint being accepted by this Service for investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to:
    1. The resident’s request for sound insulation at the property.
    2. Reports of repairs to the property
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53  the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for the failures identified in its handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has:
    1. Contacted the resident to discuss what steps, if any, can be taken to address sound transference at the property.
    2. Contacted the resident to discuss whether she wishes to pursue an application for mutual exchange and, and if she does, to provide her with information about how to do so.
    3. Paid the resident £100 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to respond to the request for sound insulation.
    4. Paid the resident £200 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs within a reasonable time.

Recommendation

  1. That the landlord remind relevant staff of the need to address all complaint issues, and include a specific response to each element in complaint letters to reassure the resident that each component has been considered.