Hyde Housing Association Limited (202017270)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017270

Hyde Housing Association Limited

12 June 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:

1. The landlord’s response to reports of trees damaging the fencing and shed.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
3. The standard of the service provided by the landlord.

Background and summary of events

2.The resident is a tenant of the landlord and the tenancy began on 26 March 2018. The property is a three–bedroom house. The resident has informed this service that she has moved from the property since the complaint was made.

The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities listed for the resident.

The landlord’s complaints policy states it operates a two–stage complaints process. At stage one, the complaint response will be issued within ten working days and at stage two, the response will be issued within 20 working days. At both stages if there is to be a delay in issuing the response the landlord will inform the resident of the delay and issue the response within an additional ten working days.

Section 10(g) of the tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for boundary walls and fences.

Section 10(h) of the tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for internal walls, floors and ceilings.

The landlord’s repair policy is on its website and states it will:

4. Install communal and boundary fencing to public or adjoining private land (not dividing fences between homes).
5. Remove dead, diseased or dangerous trees in communal back gardens and in street properties, after assessment.

The landlord’s repairs policy states a tenant is responsible for maintaining dividing fences between it and its neighbour.

Summary of Events

The landlord has not provided any evidence of its actions prior to April 2021. The landlord (in its stage one response) acknowledges the resident contacted it regarding the fence in her garden needing to be replaced in August 2020 due to ash trees and Russian vine pushing the resident’s garden fences over. 

On 8 April 2021, the landlord contacted its contractor and raised a work order to survey a tree which had caused a fence to fall in the resident’s back garden.

It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the survey was completed but the landlord’s contractor wrote to the landlord on 13 April 2021 to provide a quote and informed the landlord that it’s tree surgeon had concerns over if it was the Council or the landlord who owned the tree and this would need to be investigated.

On 11 May 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord, the council and her MP. In the email the resident stated:

6. The tree surgeon had visited on 10 April 2021.
7. The landlord and the council were denying responsibility for three of the seven trees that needed removing.
8. Her garden backs onto public land, her shed had been destroyed by hanging Russian vines from the trees and once it collapsed she would have had no privacy.
9. The situation had been going on for almost one year.
10. She wanted confirmation of who was denying ownership of the trees.

The landlord emailed its contractors on 11 May 2021 and asked for a price to cut three trees that were preventing the resident being able to erect a fence in their garden.

The landlord’s contractor responded the same day to state its tree surgeon would be unwilling to touch the trees unless the landlord could give assurances the trees belonged to the landlord and not the council as it was unwilling to touch the trees without appropriate permission. 

The landlord’s contractor attended the residents property on 11 May 2021 to repair tiles in the resident’s bathroom. The landlords record states the contractor said it would only put up white tiles to replace the existing damaged tiles which were blue in colour but this was refused by the resident due to the difference in colour.  The contractor sealed the cracks in the tiles and sealed around the bath but did not replace any tiles.  

On 18 May 2021, the landlord emailed its contractors and an email was attached from the council to confirm which trees did not belong to them. A copy of this email was requested from the landlord but has not been provided.

The landlord issued an update to its stage one investigation to the resident on 21 May 2021. In the responses the landlord acknowledged there were outstanding repairs at the resident’s property and that the resident had received poor communication from the landlord regarding these repairs. In the update the landlord stated:

11. After the report regarding the fence was made in August 2020 a contractor attended the same month and advised the fence could not be replaced until the trees and Russian vine had been attended to. The resident was told it was the responsibility of the council to do this by the contractor.
12. The council attended and removed vegetation they were responsible for and said what was left was the responsibility of the landlord.
13. The resident had made numerous phone calls and emails to the landlord and was contacted by its surveyor in March 2021 who sent tree surgeons to the resident’s home.
14. The resident was advised by the landlords surveyor there were seven Ash trees and Russian vine that needed attending to. The resident sent the surveyor evidence from the council of the landlord’s responsibility and heard nothing further.
15. The operative who attended the residents property on 11 May 2021 to apply sealant around the bath had advised the resident that where there was a gap due to missing tiles, water was escaping causing damage to the residents utility room ceiling and the resident was concerned about the ceiling bowing and being damaged.

The landlord said it would carry out an investigation and provide an outcome to the resident by 7 June 2021.

On 8 June 2021, the landlord informed the resident it had requested its surveyor attend the resident’s property and its appointments team would be in contact. It provided the resident with a holding letter on the case and said it would wait for an update from the surveyor after the visit. 

On 14 June 2021, the resident made a complaint to the council stating she had been told by the landlord that  the trees and vines causing the damage to her property were on council land.

On 17 June 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response. The landlord apologised for the delay in issuing the stage one response to the resident citing staffing issues as the reason for the delay. The landlord said it would acknowledge the delay within its offer of compensation.

The stage one response stated it could only:

16. Investigate and consider service failures that had occurred up to six months prior to receipt of the complaint. It said it was evident the resident had pursued the landlord about the trees in the past six months and it had decided . The landlord also  stated the resident had contacted the landlord on numerous occasions regarding the replacement of the tiles broken that had previously been broken by its contractor.

The response stated:

17. It could have done more to complete the repairs quicker for the resident and upheld the complaint.
18. It offered £250 as an apology for the service the resident experienced.
19. It committed to:

Investigate the trees in the garden and resolve the issue.

Repair/replace the fencing that backed onto the communal area once the trees had been attended to.

Attend to the ceiling in the utility room under the bathroom.

Replace the tiling in the bathroom.

Complete repairs to the front room window.

The landlord stated the complaint had been highlighted to the property services team and the surveying team to ensure the delays and poor communication were highlighted and learned from.

The landlord asked its contractors on 17 June 2021 to renew all the bathroom tiles to standard white and make good the ceiling after the leak from the bathroom.

The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 20 July 2021. The contractor stated to the residents it was not replacing all the tiles and the resident refused the works.

On 20 July 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. In the request the resident stated:

20. The front room window to be repaired was not on the contractor’s list of works.
21. The contractor would not approve the work to be carried out on the bathroom tiles.
22. She had been told the ceiling repair had been completed but the ceiling was only painted and was still bowed.
23. Trees had not been tended to and previously good parts of the fence were being destroyed. The resident asked who would pay for the cost of the shed to be replaced.
24. The contractor had told the resident the landlord would not give permission for the works to be completed and the resident could not reach the landlord’s surveyor on the phone.

The landlord acknowledged the escalation request the same day.

The resident contacted this Service on 25 August 2021 as she had not had a reply from the landlord. The resident stated she had had two contractors walk out of the property after being booked in to re-tile the bathroom and the landlord then sent one person another day to re-tile the bathroom in three hours.  The resident said there was black plastic held up with duct tape in the bathroom and no follow–up appointment booked.

On the 6 and 7 September 2021, the landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property and completed the tiling and grouting required. The landlord’s surveyor was also on site with a tree officer from the council and established that the landlord was responsible for two of the trees and the remaining trees were the responsibility of the next door neighbour. The landlord contacted its tree surgeon to carry out works on the trees that were the landlord’s responsibility and was told by the tree surgeon they were fully booked until the end of October 2021.  

This Service wrote to the landlord on 9 September 2021 asking for the complaint to be escalated to stage two of its complaint process. 

On 14 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge the stage two escalation request and said it would provide a response to the resident by 12 October 2021. The email asked for the resident to provide photos of the damaged ceiling, trees and tiling work.

On 12 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her the stage two response would be delayed because getting the information needed to provide a proper reply was taking longer than expected. It informed the resident it would provide the full response by 9 November 2021.

On 12 October 2021, the resident updated the landlord that the bathroom had been tiled, the ceiling had been replaced and just needed to be painted. The resident stated it took six visits for the tiling to be completed and that the operatives who attended told her the contractor did not have a tiler working for it so the work was done by whoever it could get on the day. The resident informed the landlord that the tiling completed was poor quality. The resident also stated they had received no date for the work to begin on the trees.

The landlord responded to the resident on 14 October 2021 and agreed photo evidence of the tiling showed it was not done to an acceptable standard and would be raised further. The landlord also stated the tree surgeon hoped to attend the resident’s property by the end of October 2021 to survey the trees.

The landlord records evidence that it spoke to the resident on 14 October 2021. The resident  said she would allow for the contractor to return to correct the tiling on the basis that a competent tiler was sent as she had been told by the contractors operatives on the six previous visits to her property that it did not have anyone who was skilled in that area.

The landlord requested on 18 October 2021 that its contractor send a tiler by trade to the resident’s property to complete the tiling works.

On 1 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update on the trees.

On 2 November 2021, the landlord’s contractor informed the landlord it would complete the tiling works on 5 and 6 November 2021 and that the final part of the ceiling repairs were completed on 30 October 2021. 

The landlord issued its stage two response on 4 November 2021. In the response the landlord stated:

25. It did not manage the progress of the repairs effectively and failed to communicate with any reassurance to the resident how it was going to put things right.
26. It was aware the resident had had six visits from various tradesman to complete the tiling works and once completed the resident was not happy with the quality of the completed work which it agreed was very poor. It had arranged for the works to be completed by a competent tiler on 5 November 2021.
27. Following the redecoration to the bathroom ceiling on 20 July 2021 the resident was not happy with the landlord’s decision not to fix the ceiling where it had bowed due to the previous damage. It had reviewed its response and changed its decision. It competed replaster and repainting works on the ceiling which were completed by 30 October 2021.
28. The work on the trees had been delayed due to the time it took to establish which trees were the responsibility of the landlord and this was due to communication between the landlord and the council. It informed the resident its tree surgeon had no capacity to survey the trees until early November 2021 and once that was completed they would know more about what would need to be done.
29. It acknowledged it had failed to respond to the resident in line with its internal complaint process and apologised to the resident.
30. It offered to increase the residents compensation offer from £250 to £450.

Post Complaint

The resident emailed the landlord to say the tiler did not attend on 5 November 2021 as expected and was told he went to do another job.

On 6 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord  stating that she had not heard from the landlord regarding the retiling of her bathroom since November 2021 and the trees issue was still outstanding.

The landlord confirmed that the tree works were completed on 4 May 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of tree repairs.

The tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for boundary walls and fences and the resident is responsible for maintaining boundary fences with neighbours. The resident has stated and the landlord has acknowledged that the damaged fence separates the resident’s property with public land. The resident as part of her stage two escalation request asked the landlord who would be paying for the cost of replacing the shed in her garden. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its response or offer any advice to the resident about potential compensation or liability claims.

The landlord’s website explains how it will handle reports regarding tree works. The website provides the opportunity for residents to report issues with trees on their property, or encroaching onto their property. The website states that the landlord’s cleaning and gardening contractors will assist it with responsive tree works where a tree is unstable, diseased or at risk of damaging property. Its contractors will also work with it over time to establish tree surveys, improved information about its stock of trees and planned programmes of works.

When the resident first reported her concerns regarding the trees affecting her garden the landlord did send its contractors to survey the trees however the works could not be completed due to uncertainty about the ownership of the trees. The landlord was asked to provide evidence of what records it had regarding ownership of the trees but did not provide any evidence to this Service. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported concerns about the trees in August 2020, it took over a year until September 2021 for them to establish which trees it owned  

The landlord has not evidenced that during this time it had adequate records regarding ownership of trees or that it was proactive enough in liaising with the council and its contractor to establish ownership of the trees. The landlord was asked to provide evidence of how it investigated the ownership of the trees and how it liaised with the council but no evidence was provided by the landlord.

The landlord has provided a repairs log showing that survey requests of the trees were raised on 8 April 2021 however no other repairs are logged regarding the trees.

Once ownership was established in September 2021, the landlord encountered a delay in its tree surgeon being available to assess the trees and stated it would not be available until the end of October 2021/early November 2021. This was communicated to the resident in the complaint response dated 4 November 2021.  While a delay in a specialist contractor being available can be expected, the update provided to the resident in the stage two response could have provided the resident with a more substantial update considering the date it was issued was after the date the landlord told the resident the tree surgeon could be available.

In its complaints responses, the landlord stated how it would put things right. It stated that the tree surveys would be done and works required would be completed. The landlord did not provide a time frame to the resident for this to be done. After the complaint, the resident informed this service in March 2022 that the repairs were still outstanding and she had not been informed by the landlord of it intention regarding the tree works. The landlord confirmed the works were completed in May 2022. This meant the resident was waiting at least 20 months for the required works to be completed and there is no evidence to show that the landlord it kept the resident suitably informed of the progress of the works during this time. There is also no evidence to show why it took so long in this case.

The landlord has not evidenced it considered the resident’s requests for answers about liability for costs to replace the garden shed or previously paid out costs to replace fences damaged by the trees. It also did not also refer the resident to or mention any options to pursue liability insurance claims, which it should have done.

In conclusion, the landlord failed to act quickly enough on the resident’s reports regarding the trees to establish ownership, did not complete the required works in line with its repairs policy and failed to act on the commitments made in its complaint responses to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the property repairs.

The tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for internal walls, floor, ceilings and plasterworks. The landlord’s repairs policy states that non–emergency repairs will be attended to within 20 working days. The landlord’s repair records show it raised repair requests for the tiling in the bathroom on 28 February 2020, 08 July 2020, 8 April 2021, 23 June 2021, 4 August 2021, 6 September 2021, and 20 October 2021. The evidence shows the resident was not happy with the standard of the repairs carried out during these visits and the visits were attended to by operatives of the contractor who were not qualified to complete the works or stated they were unable to do the works. The landlord agreed that following the tiling being completed the repairs were not to an acceptable standard and needed to be recalled to be done by a competent tiler.

The resident has stated a reason for the repeated works on the tiling needing to be carried out was due to a qualified tiler not being sent to complete the works. In the evidence provided the landlord has acknowledged this and also the tiling works carried out by plumbers had caused flooding. In its repair request to its contractor in October 2021 the landlord specifically requested a tiler by trade was sent to complete the works. This was five months after stating the works would be completed in its stage one response and after multiple visits by tradespeople not qualified in tiling being sent to do the works.  The landlord has not explained why it took this long for the tiling to be booked in with a qualified tiler following the previous failed visits.

The works regarding the ceiling bowing were acknowledged by the landlord in May 2021 and it requested its contractors attend the property to carry out repairs in June 2021. Initially the ceiling was repainted but was still bowing prompting the resident to need to escalate this to the landlord in July 2021. The resident confirmed to the landlord the repairs to the ceiling bowing were completed in October 2021. This was five months after the landlord was made aware of the repair which was significantly above its repair policy response time of twenty working days and required multiple visits due to not being correctly repaired at the first attempt.

Given the resident’s concerns about the standard of the works and the repeated times the landlord was informed of this it would have been appropriate for the landlord to closely monitor the standard of repairs in the property but there is no evidence the landlord did this.

The landlord in its stage one complaint response agreed to complete the repairs to the tiling in the bathroom and damage to the ceiling in the utility room. These were not completed prompting the resident to escalate her complaint. The assurance was made again in the stage two response on 4 November 2021. The resident has stated the works were still outstanding as of March 2022 with the resident receiving no further updates from the landlord.

The landlord failed to send the correct tradesperson on multiple occasions to complete the tiling works, the works took six months to be completed and once were completed were carried out by a non-tiler resulting in the works needing to be done again.

The landlords handling of the complaint

The landlord operates a two–stage complaints process with the stage one response being issued with 10 working days and stage two within 20 working days.

The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s original complaint and has not provided a reason why this was not provided or how the complaint was originally raised with the landlord. The landlord’s records do show it was considering the complaint on 15 May 2021 and wrote to the resident on 21 May 2021 after speaking with her to discuss the complaint. 

In the letter the landlord stated it understood the complaint was about the repairs in the property and the work required to the trees damaging the residents garden. The letter stated to the resident the landlord would issue its stage one response by 7 June 2021.

The landlord then wrote to the resident stating it was having difficulty getting the information it needed to provide a response to the resident and stated the stage one response would be delayed until 21 June 2021. The landlord did not provide any other explanation for the delay or what information it was waiting for.

The stage one response was issued on 17 June 2021.  This was 19 days after the landlord initially spoke to the resident. The landlord did acknowledge the delay and apologised to the resident, which was appropiate.  The landlord committed to completing the required works in the garden and within the property.

The resident however escalated her complaint on 20 July 2021 stating none of the commitments made in the stage one response had been completed. The stage two request was acknowledged by the landlord the same day but no further contact is recorded with the resident with the resident stating she heard nothing further from the landlord until an update letter sent on 14 September 2021 and this was after intervention from this Service asking for the landlord to respond to the resident. No explanation or apology was given to the resident for the delay.  The landlord stated a decision on the stage two complaint would be issued by 12 October 2021 but on 12 October the landlord wrote to the resident stating the response would be delayed and will be issued by 9 November 2021. The stage two response was issued on 4 November 2021.  This was 77 days after the escalation request was made and significantly above the landlords stage two policy of 20 working days.

As with the stage one response there was no further information provided to the resident for the reason for the delay.

In the stage two response the landlord acknowledged it had not completed the repairs effectively and did not adequality communicate with the resident.

In the stage two response the landlord offered the resident £450 compensation for its poor quality service. The landlord address multiple complaint points but there was no further offer of explanation from the landlord for the amount of compensation and what it was specifically for.  Given that an offer of compensation by a landlord is to offer appropriate redress to any identify failings by the landlord this was not an appropriate way of offering redress to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the tree works.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s repairs to the property.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to have adequate records regarding the responsibility of the trees near the residents garden and failed to evidence it investigated to confirm ownership of the trees in a timely manner.  Once responsibility was established the landlord took too long to carry out the required works.

The landlord failed to complete repairs in the resident’s property in a timely manner despite its assurances in its complaint responses it would do so. It sent persons unskilled to complete the tiling and required multiple visits for all the repairs in the property to be completed.

The landlord failed to provide this service with a copy of the resident’s initial complaint. Its complaint responses at stage one and two were issued significantly  outside the timescales in its complaint policy. The landlord failed to act on the assurances given in its complaint responses in a timely manner.

Orders and recommendations 

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to pay the resident  £750 consisting of:

31. £350 for the delay in responding to and completing the tree works.
32. £200 for the handling of the repair works to the tiles in the bathroom and ceiling in the utility room.
33. £200 for the its delays in the complaint handling.

If the landlord has already paid the resident £450 this should be deducted from the £750 ordered. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.