Hyde Housing Association Limited (202016984)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016984

Hyde Housing Association Limited

29 July 2022

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 reports about:
   1. Notification of a rent increase.
   2. Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
   3. Fire Safety.
2. The landlord’s associated complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background

3. The resident lived in the property, a flat in a house, from 25 March 2019 to 1 February 2021 under an assured periodic tenancy. The resident said that he had a heart attack whilst resident at the property (November 2020), having previously had no health concerns. 
4. The resident paid the rent amount as shown on his tenancy agreement (not seen) and confirmed by the landlord prior to the tenancy. The gross rent increased on 1 April 2019 due to an uplift in the eligible service charges. When the resident fell into arrears, he was told that he had been notified of the increase in February 2019. A redacted copy of the rent notice sent to the former tenant was provided by the landlord.
5. The resident complained on 17 July 2019 that he was told of the increase too late to amend his universal credit claim, and this had caused him to have rent arrears of £85.73. The landlord did not respond to the complaint until approached by this Service and then issued a stage two response on 23 June 2021 where it referred to the 2020 increase, saying the annual notification had been sent. The letter offered £175 for the delay in its complaint response.
6. The resident contacted the landlord via the complaint’s department on multiple occasions about alleged ASB in the flat downstairs from September 2020 onwards. This included, reports about a generator making noise at night, the fire alarm going off and of racist abuse. He stated that the police had raided a cannabis factory in the property. He reported substantial parties during the national lockdown, witnessing drug taking and having seen a gun. Police attended but did not access the property. The resident also raised concerns that the fire alarm had been silenced but the landlord did not attend.
7. Having stated he had reported the ASB in his own name, the resident also sent a fake email to the landlord from a 3rd party who was not a tenant and noted it was responded to the same day. The resident felt victimised due to his ethnicity. The resident’s complaint emails about the ASB and fire alarm were acknowledged but no response was made until 23 June 2021, after the resident had vacated and following further contact from this Service.
8. The landlord’s complaint response said that the landlord would ensure that the basement flat adhered to the tenancy agreement and that the resident should call the police if he was concerned. It also said that the rent increase had been notified and that the complaint was not upheld beyond the delay in the complaint response, for which £175 was offered as compensation. The fire alarm issue was not addressed in the landlord’s complaint response.
9. The resident wants the landlord to accept that they did not advise him of the correct amount of rent, took no action over the ASB reported causing him to leave a property he had intended to remain in, and did not answer his complaint despite chases from this Service over a further 8 months.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

10. It is noted that the resident has stated that the ASB seriously affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt his comments; but must clarify that it is beyond the expertise of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the ASB and his health, and whether this was the fault of the landlord. The resident may therefore wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. This investigation considers whether the landlord responded appropriately to reports made by the resident about the ASB, the rent increase and the fire safety issue, and the associated complaints process.

Rent Increase

11. In its letter of 16 July 2019, the landlord claimed that the resident had been informed of the rent increase, providing a redacted copy of the letter addressed to the previous tenant, sent prior to the resident moving to the address. No tenancy agreement has been provided by the landlord, but the resident quotes the relevant section as being 3.3, which says that at least 28 days written notice should be provided of an increase in rent or service charge.
12. The resident complained the next day, but by the time the complaint response of 23 June 2021 was issued, almost two years after the complaint about the rent increase, the landlord referred instead to the rent increase letter for 2020. This was despite the resident’s clear letter and the emails from the landlord sent prior to the tenancy. This represented a failure of the complaints process, in that the landlord failed to address the specific issue raised by the resident. The landlord’s complaints handling has been considered in more detail below.
13. There is no evidence that the landlord gave the required 28 days’ notice of the rent increase back in 2019, or any notice in advance to the resident, which would appear to be in breach of the unseen tenancy agreement. Because of the delay in the rent increase being notified, the resident states that he was unable to get the increase backdated on his Universal Credit claim and as a result he fell into arrears of £85.73 on his rent account. The resident paid the arrears prior to the tenancy ending, as the landlord reported the rent account up to date.
14. The resident proactively checked the rent amount with the landlord on the day his tenancy began so that he could update Universal Credit but there is no evidence that he was informed about the increase which would take effect a week later. It was inappropriate for the landlord to claim that the resident was informed of the rent increase by presenting a letter sent to the former tenant. The landlord did not take sufficient care when responding to the resident’s further query and referred to the wrong year in its complaints response.
15. It would be fair in all the circumstances of the case for the landlord to compensate the resident the sum of the £85.73 arrears he has reported as having incurred due to the compounded errors of the landlord. In addition, a further amount of compensation is considered both reasonable and proportionate to reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience in having to pursue this matter.

ASB

16. The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour policy statement of November 2017 does not include details on process. Section 3.5 says that the landlord will take a customer focused approach to tackling ASB. Section 3.6 says it will consider legal action to provide protection and at 3.7 that it will take a multi-agency approach. Section 6.5 says the landlord will work with residents to manage behaviour which is not ASB by offering guidance and advice.
17. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord recognised the resident’s distress about the fire alarm (which is dealt with separately below), the parties and the noise he described. There is no evidence any ASB investigation was undertaken or that the resident was given any support or advice.
18. The landlord’s ASB procedure (April 2016 version) lists the landlord actions required in all cases. This includes categorisation and risk assessment of the case, agreeing an action plan, interviewing of victims/witnesses/perpetrators, reviewing the case, gathering evidence and working in partnership with relevant agencies where appropriate. There is no evidence of these actions having been taken in this instance however.
19. If the landlord did not consider the actions of the occupants of the property downstairs to constitute ASB, there is no evidence that the resident was advised in writing of how this decision was reached. The police were called to the downstairs property and the resident’s testimony indicates how distressing he found the events, particularly as much of the activity took place during national lockdown restrictions, yet the only response from the landlord was to say that it would ensure that all tenants complied with the tenancy agreement when it responded through its complaints process.
20. There is evidence that when the resident emailed the complaints department in September 2020 under another name about the same property, a response with support and advice was given immediately. The landlord has provided no substantive responses to the resident’s emails, sent to the complaints department in September and October 2020, and March 2021, and there has been no explanation as to why the resident’s contact was not responded to in the same way as the ‘third party’ in response to the reports of ASB.
21. The resident has described his distress and provided photographs showing he was barricaded in to his flat in fear of hundreds of people downstairs. The resident says he called the emergency phone number which he was told was for repairs only. There are separate routes for reporting ASB which are prominently shown on the landlord’s website, and the resident has not provided emails to his tenancy officer prior to the complaints made in September 2020. However, the Ombudsman would expect to see such serious concerns redirected if they needed to be and for ownership of the concerns to be taken swiftly by the landlord once reported.
22. The issue has now been taken over by events as the resident vacated the property, in which he states he was otherwise very happy. This is particularly unfortunate as had action been taken promptly by the landlord in line with its ‘customer focused’ approach, be that with commencement of legal action against the alleged perpetrators of ASB or otherwise via support for the resident, the resident may have been able to remain.
23. The Ombudsman is not able to draw conclusions between the resident’s decision to vacate the property with the landlord’s service failures in responding to his reports. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme extends, in cases such as this, to identifying these service failures and then considering suitable remedies where it is felt that the landlord has not gone far enough to put things right.
24. In this case, it is considered fair in all the circumstances that the resident be paid compensation in recognition of the landlord’s failure to act on his concerns about the ASB, in contravention of its ASB policy. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may offer payment if it fails to deliver a service and the compensation procedure says this may be up to £500 for delay resulting in a high impact and up to £500 for distress and inconvenience resulting in a high impact.
25. An award of £450 for the delay and £450 for the distress and inconvenience, making a total of £900 in respect of the ASB element of this complaint, is therefore considered appropriate. This sum has awarded towards the top end of the landlord’s compensation matrix in each element of the landlord’s failure and the total amount of the award is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s suggested remedies for cases involving maladministration resulting in significant and/or protracted detriment to a household.

Complaints Handling 

26. The landlord’s complaint process says at section 8.3 that stage one complaints will be responded to in 20 working days, and stage two in 20 working days. The resident’s letter about the rent increase was clearly headed formal complaint and sent by email on 17 July 2019. It was not responded to until 23 June 2021, almost two years later, and only one (final) response was sent. The eventual response was incorrect in respect of the rent increase, did not investigate the ASB or fire alarm issues and, in all the circumstances, demonstrated a lack of customer focus and engagement.
27. The complaints about the ASB beginning in September 2020 were automatically acknowledged, but not progressed. The resident has stated that the issues he complained of resulted in him moving out of the property. Had the landlord progressed the issue via its internal complaint process appropriately, this may not have been necessary.
28. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the accusations of racism raised by the resident in his complaints. The Ombudsman cannot assess issues involving equality/discrimination as this Service does not have the authority or expertise to consider such issues. However, an Ombudsman investigation can consider whether a landlord has investigated, clarified its position and signposted accordingly in such cases. Likewise, the issue of fire safety was raised by the resident from his email to the complaints department on 12 September 2020, but there is no evidence that this issue was responded to at any stage by the landlord. The issue of the landlord’s response to the fire safety issues raised by the resident is dealt with separately below.
29. The landlord’s staff should take care to respond to the complaint that is made and agree the terms of a complaint at the start of the process, and if issues are added to the complaint investigation, or if they will be dealt with separately. In this way, both parties are clear about what the concerns are and what will be expected at the end of the complaints process.
30. The Ombudsman notes that £175 was offered to reflect the delay in the landlord’s complaint response, albeit this was at a point when the landlord had not upheld any of the issues being complained about. This investigation finds that these issues did have merit, which means that the delay in the response had more serious implications for the resident. In the circumstances, the amount offered by the landlord here is not considered proportionate to the failures identified. The delay in responding was excessive and the lack of customer focus of significant concern, with issues either not addressed, or else misconstrued in the final response. As such, a higher amount of compensation has been ordered below to reflect these failures.

Fire Safety

31. The landlord is responsible for ensuring that properties meet fire safety standards. The reported faulty fire alarm presented a potential fire safety risk that came within the landlord’s repair obligations. As such the resident was correct to report it immediately in September 2020, with the landlord responsible for responding to the report.
32. In this instance the tenancy agreement has not been provided but the landlord’s online repair page directs residents to always report emergencies by phone, or communal issues online or via an ‘app.’ The landlord should have redirected the resident’s email as appropriate and the mention of a faulty fire alarm in a multi-occupancy property should have resulted in urgent action being taken. The landlord says that emergency repairs will be responded to within 4 hours, and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. In this instance, neither timescale was adhered to, and no explanation was given. It is not unreasonable that concern about the faulty fire alarm would cause the resident considerable distress, coupled with the reports of the ASB, which had indicated multiple visitors attending the building during anti-social hours.
33. The landlord failed to respond at all to the report of the faulty and silenced fire alarm and then failed to clarify its position on fire safety through the internal complaint procedure. It may be that the landlord had attended the property and ensured that the fire alarm was not a risk, but there is no evidence of this. The lack of response to the resident’s reports failed to provide reassurance and showed a lack of transparency in the landlord’s complaint process. This service failure on behalf of the landlord warrants additional compensation as well as an investigation of its own to highlight how this situation occurred and avoid a repeat in the future.
34. The apparent failure to respond to concerns about the fire alarm is a serious one with the potential for significant consequences. This would be a cause of distress for the resident, particularly given the numbers of people and electrical equipment downstair as reported by the resident. The impact of the landlord’s failure was therefore potentially high. In this instance, a compensation award of £300 has been ordered to reflect the landlord’s failure to address this issue, together with an order for the landlord to review the case and report back to this Service with its findings. This report will confirm the current situation with the fire alarm in question, together with confirmation of current fire safety information for the building.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the rent increase notification.
36. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports.
37. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the fire alarm.
38. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

39. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1650, broken down as follows:

1. £150 to reflect the rent account costs he reported due to the landlord delay in notifying him of the rent increase, with an additional amount to reflect his distress and inconvenience on this issue.
2. £900 in respect of the failure to respond appropriately to the ASB reports.
3. £300 to reflect the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
4. £300 to reflect the landlord’s failures from a fire safety perspective.

40. The above amount to include any amounts of compensation already paid through the complaints process. The landlord to evidence compliance with this order to this Service within four weeks of this report.
41. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord to complete a review of this case from a fire safety perspective, following which a report shall be provided to this Service about current fire safety within the building, including the fire alarm issue reported by the resident.