Hyde Housing Association Limited (202100088)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100088

Hyde Housing Association Limited

21 October 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak, including the resident’s reports of damage and the landlord’s handling of repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident occupied a first floor one-bedroom flat under an assured tenancy which began on 28 September 2009. The landlord had recorded for the resident a number of significant health issues and that he was disabled.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord has an obligation to ensure that the structure and outside of the property including the roof are kept in good repair. The landlord charges a service charge to maintain the communal areas. The landlord also has a statutory obligation under Section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the property free from hazards, such as excess cold.
The landlord’s repairs policy stated that it will provide “efficient, prompt, transparent and customer focused repair services ensuring high customer satisfaction.” It will also carry out efficient, accurate, and timely pre and post inspections.
It would carry out emergency repairs within 4 hours. Emergency repairs are defined as those which threaten health and safety. All non-urgent repairs will be attended to within 20 working days and arranged on a day convenient to the resident. The landlord could deal more urgently with some repairs for vulnerable residents.
Under the landlord’s compensation policy, it can pay a maximum of £500 for delays, £500 for distress and inconvenience, and £50 for a resident’s time and trouble.

Summary of events

In or around November 2019, the resident reported water leaking from his roof into his kitchen, hallway, and living room. According to its repair records, the landlord instructed its contractor to attend on 19 November 2019, however, based on its subsequent responses, the contractor did not attend until 22 December 2019 when it disconnected the kitchen light to make it safe.
The landlord’s surveyor subsequently attended on 23 January 2020 to inspect the leak. Its contractor attended on 12 February 2020 and again on a joint visit with another contractor on 25 March 2020. A new roof was discussed but the contractor did not provide a quote. In April 2020, roofers attended but did not repair the leaks. According to its repair records, the landlord raised a job again with the contractors on 6 July 2020 to attend to the leaks. There was no further action at this time. The resident chased on an unspecified date in the meantime.
The resident made a formal complaint on 5 October 2020 that the leak had not been resolved. He reported that his health was deteriorating and that he was concerned about the approaching winter. He also reported that water dripped mainly into the kitchen when it rained, and that there was insufficient lighting due to the disconnect light, which had caused him to have an accident. He also noted the landlord was to fit a new kitchen in the property.
On 14 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident that it had arranged for its contractor and surveyor to assess the roof and then complete repairs. It advised it was also investigating why the repairs had not taken place sooner. It would provide its stage one response on 3 November 2020.
According to its repair records, the landlord raised a job to attend to the leak “that had not been resolved.” An appointment on 10 November 2020 was postponed as the landlord had not made the necessary arrangements, given the resident’s medical treatment. The appointment took place on 30 November 2020.
According to an internal email dated 2 December 2020, there were “too many” cracks in the roof that had not been attended to. The contractor informed the landlord that they were unable to undertake the works themselves and needed to involve subcontractors. According to an internal email of 9 December 2020, once the roof was repaired the landlord would restore the kitchen light and redecorate the water damage.
According to the contractor’s report dated 16 December 2020, the contractor identified that the roof felting system required replacement. The job required scaffolding and a consultation with residents or leaseholders under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
On 22 December 2020, the landlord provided its stage one response, as follows:
1. It acknowledged that it could have carried out the repairs sooner.
2. It offered £125 in compensation consisting of £50 for the delay in arranging the repairs, £50 for distress and inconvenience caused, and £25 for its poor communication.
3. It noted its surveyor and contractor had attended on 1 December 2020. The repairs identified required another contractor to carry out the works to the roof, and that a quote was provided on 16 December 2020. Once the quote was approved, there would be a “section 20 consultation” that would take 30 days. It would then repair the roof. The lights in the kitchen would also be reconnected.
4. It acknowledged that it should have arranged an inspection of the roof straight away. There had been a delay to the surveyor attending on 23 January 2020, and while its contractor attended on 12 February 2020, this should have been raised as a joint visit as it was aware it required another contractor. A joint visit was arranged for 25 March 2020, however, the contractor did not provide an estimate. The landlord acknowledge it did not take any further action and it had failed to return the resident’s call when he chased the repair. The landlord also acknowledged it should have taken ownership and made sure the repairs to the roof took place.
The resident replied on 6 January 2021, declining the offer of compensation.
The landlord wrote again on 13 January 2021 and increased the compensation to £550, consisting of £250 for the delay in arranging the repairs, £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused, and £50 for the resident’s time and trouble.
The resident wrote to the local authority on 10 March 2021 and reported the lack of repairs and the subsequent impact this had on him. The local authority wrote to the landlord on 18 March 2021 that the current state of disrepair was impacting negatively on his wellbeing. It classed the disrepair as a ‘hazard’ under the Housing Act 2004, the hazards consisting of water through a concrete ceiling which had caused defective electrical installations/lighting, and excess cold within the dwelling.
According to its repair records, the landlord raised a job on 6 April 2021 to renew the felt roofing system.
According to contractor’s report, scaffolding was erected on 23 April 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 May 2021 referring to the landlord’s intentions in previous correspondence. He was having major surgery on 26 May 2021. He expressed concerns about the scaffolding that had been erected and the disturbance it caused. He also expressed concerns about what he understood the proposed works to be. He described the impact of the disrepair on his medical condition. He suggested that the works should take place after his operation.
The landlord carried out an internal analysis of its performance and repairs service on 5 May 2021. It set out a plan about how to address its failures/weaknesses, and also an action plan for the repairs to the resident’s roof.
According to an internal email dated 5 May 2021, the contractor attended on 30 April 2021 to commence works on roof, however, the resident had stopped the works and raised concerns about the erection of the scaffolding. The resident had suggested there was no roof underlay/insulation, but the roofers confirmed it was in order.
According to an internal email on 10 May 2021, it was suggested that the roof be considered for the roofing replacement programme but the outcome is unknown. The landlord intended to overlay the felt roofing system on top of the existing asphalt and renew other components. It set out a plan, with specified standards and said it would then submit a timescale plan.
There ensued a discussion between the parties about the scaffolding during which time the landlord sought to reassure the resident with a risk assessment report. A site meeting took place on 12 May 2021 to allay the resident’s concerns and discuss the scope of works.
According to an internal landlord email dated 29 June 2021, some works were carried out on 29 and 30 June 2021, but were not completed due to the weather.
The landlord provide its stage two response on 2 July 2021, as follows:
1. The works were due to be completed on 5 July 2021, with the follow-on repairs to the kitchen to be carried out at a later date.
2. It agreed that it had not repaired the leak when it should have and it had not communicated how it was going to rectify the leak.
3. It had noted that the leak had still not been resolved.
4. It would await the outcome of the repair works before carrying out remedial works in the property. Its surveyor would be the resident’s point of contact.
5. It offered £800 compensation and apologised.
6. The compensation offered was in relation to the delays, and distress and inconvenience caused, and was in line with its compensation policy.
On 13 July 2021, the resident expressed concerns about the felting. He also expressed concern that the compensation offered would not cover the costs for the internal repairs and decorations, nor did they reflect the impact of living with the issues for the past 19 months. Every ceiling required repairs and redecorating.
The landlord noted on 20 July 2021 that the roof had been inspected and it was awaiting the roof to dry out. It also confirmed it would carry out any remedial works including repairs to the ceilings, stain block, and redecorating.
The landlord replied on 21 July 2021. It increased its offer of compensation from £800 to £1,150 consisting of £150 for its poor complaint handling, £500 for inconvenience, and £500 for the delays.
On 26 September 2021, the resident wrote that he had three major surgical operations and was in recovery. He informed the landlord of other serious health conditions he had. He reported that there were still wet patches where it was expected that the ceiling should have dried out, but seemed to be worse.
The resident reported on 21 October 2021 that there were further leaks following recent rain. On the same day, the landlord arranged a water test to be carried out at the beginning of November 2021. As a consequence, the kitchen works could not go ahead. At this time, the resident still did not have a functioning kitchen light.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 November 2020 that a water test was carried out but was inconclusive.. It considered that the leaks were coming from the soil pipe vents on the roof. It had instructed its contractors to fit mushroom caps on top of the vents and that it would then monitor the situation. According to an internal email dated 8 November 2021, the extensive repairs which were carried out had been tampered with. A lock would be fitted to the access window once the works were completed
The job to install a pipe stack was raised on 16 December 2021. According to the landlord’s internal emails, the order had not been raised. They were fitted on 20 December 2021.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 10 January 2022, but still failed to find source of the leak. The kitchen works were on hold accordingly.
On 20 January 2022, the resident advised that he was not residing at his home due to the kitchen light not being reliable. He subsequently chased updates on several occasions.
On 9 May 2022, the landlord advised it was going to renew the roof.
The resident has informed this service that as of 18 October 2022, the repairs have not been resolved, and that the lights trip when it rains. He has been living with his family since December 2021 due to the risks of the lack of kitchen light.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak, including the resident’s reports of damage and the landlord’s handling of repairs.

In its formal responses, the landlord acknowledged there had been service failures in relation to its handling of the repairs, for which it apologised and offered compensation. It is not disputed that the delays in this case began in November 2019, and that as of July 2021, there had been a delay of 19 months. As a result, the landlord offered the maximum compensation under its compensation policy. It remains for the Ombudsman to consider whether that offer was reasonable.
The landlord’s acknowledged failures included not following up the repairs from November 2019, not attending the property promptly on being chased, not ascertaining the safety of the property until 22 December 2019, not pursuing the repairs in accordance with its policies and/or within a reasonable period, not arranging a joint meeting with contractors, and the subsequent delays following the landlord’s letter of December 2021. It is also noted that while the landlord acknowledged that the first inspection at the property in 2020 should have been a joint inspection, it repeated this failure in early 2021. The landlord fell far short of its policy both in terms of timescales and in terms of its principles.
The landlord attributed some of the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic. It did not, however, explain in which way the pandemic was a factor. It is noted that the landlord had the opportunity to undertake repairs before the pandemic began. The national lockdown was announced on 23 March 2020 to commence the following Monday. While there was government guidance not to undertake general repairs during lockdown, and that there were staffing and difficulties accessing materials during lockdown, landlords were permitted to carry out essential maintenance repairs, such as attending to leaks. Moreover, these were works to the external parts of the building so that access to a resident’s flat may not have been required. The evidence only referred to one occasion when access to the resident’s property was required. The lockdown did not explain the landlord’s failure to follow up on the contractors. It is noted that the resident suggested the works be suspended for a brief period, but this had relatively little impact on the delays. The landlord also stated that the works would have to await a Section 20 consultation, however it is not clear whether a consultation was required, or whether one took place.
The landlord reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns about the works and safety. While it was for the landlord to decide how works were carried out, and to carry out its own checks, it reasonably listened to and addressed his concerns. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out such checks in any event.
While events after July 2021 post-dated the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, it has noted that the works, as of August 2022, remain outstanding. The events are sufficiently closely connected to the complaint so as to consider them as part of this investigation. It would not be fair or proportionate for the parties to engage in a new complaint. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have monitored the case proactively and to ensure the resident was updated. While the evidence indicates that the continuing leak may have had a different cause to that previously, one of which may have been due to vandalism, given the previous delays, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have taken particular care in its post-inspections and proactively monitored this case. There was even a delay, if brief, to ordering the chimney caps. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord needs to plan its capital expenditure and major repairs, the landlord should consider carrying out such major works, if appropriate, where there is disrepair.
It was reasonable of the landlord to undertake a review of its performance and the Ombudsman has made a further recommendation in that regard. While there was some indication that matters improved after the review, it is also noted the landlord still failed to communicate with the resident and to monitor the case.
It is reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to carry out the remedial works within the property. There is no evidence of the resident providing information about damage to his property other than the decoration. However, while the landlord awarded its maximum compensation under its policy, the landlord ought to have considered whether that was sufficient. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount offered did not properly take into account a number of factors. There was no evidence that the offer of compensation took into account the particular impact on the resident given his poor state of health, his facing major surgery in this period, and his vulnerability. While the resident was not specific about the extent of the leaks, he referred to the poor decorative state of the property and the lack of a functioning light in the kitchen during the entire period. There were also the findings of the local authority, the accumulative delays, and the consequential delay to the refurbishment of the kitchen.
The landlord was open and transparent in acknowledging its failings and it went some way to rectifying its failures with its offer of compensation. If it had not done so, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of severe maladministration rather than maladministration.
It is noted that the correspondence did not correspond with the repairs records provided to this service and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
In the view of the Ombudsman, this case demonstrates the weakness of a compensation policy that sets a maximum level, as, while it helps manage a resident’s expectations, and with consistency, it hampered the landlord from considering the case holistically, including its particular circumstances. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.

Complaints handling

The Ombudsman considers that the offer of compensation regarding its complaint handling was reasonable in the circumstances. While there were delays to its complaint responses, it was also beneficial as it provided an overview to the repairs. However, having recognised its delays, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have continued to monitor the case after the conclusion of the internal complaints procedure and, in the circumstances, it finds service failure in that respect.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak, including the resident’s reports of damage, and the landlord’s handing of repairs.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

While the landlord acknowledged its failings, the level of compensation did not adequately recognise the full impact of the disrepair on the resident.
While the landlord recognised its failings in relation to its complaint handling, it failed to monitor the case after the conclusion of the internal complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1,800, to include the £1,150 already offered to the resident, on or by 18 November 2022, as follows:
  1. An additional £500 in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak, including the resident’s reports of damage, and the landlord’s handing of repairs to the end of July 2021.
  2. An additional £150 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. The landlord is ordered to, if it has not done so already, reinstate the kitchen light and to make the electrics safe by 4 November 2022.
3. The landlord is ordered to provide, on or by 18 November 2022, confirmation to the resident and to the Ombudsman that the roof will be replaced and when those works will take place.
4. The landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection on or by 4 November 2022 to assess whether interim works are required pending the roof replacement to ensure as far as possible that no leaks re-occur and such works are to take place within 28 days of the inspection.
5. Within 14 days of the inspection or interim works, whichever is the later, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a timescale for the remedial works and the kitchen refurbishment, such date to be no later than 3 months from the date of this report as, in accordance with these orders, the landlord should have by then have made the roof secure either by way of a roof replacement or interim works.
The landlord should update the Ombudsman of progress in relation to compliance with the above orders on or by 18 November 2022, and confirm compliance with all of the above orders on or by 16 December 2022.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should ensure that it updates the resident of the works on a regular basis with an explanation for any delays.
2. The landlord should provide its position on compensation to address the delays attributable to its failures from September 2021 to the date of that the works are carried out.
3. The landlord should review the causes of leaks, in addition to the condition of the roof, and carry out such preventative maintenance as it identifies.
4. The landlord should keep under review its cases after the conclusion of its internal complaints procedure, in particular where the relevant issues have not been resolved.
5. The landlord should carry out a review of the performance by its contractors.
6. The landlord should ensure that it proactively monitors any repairs, retains ownership, and ensures it keeps its residents updated with an explanation of any delays and it implements the steps suggested in its review 5 May 2021, as appropriate.
7. The landlord should review its record-keeping methods to ensure that its repair records are comprehensive so as to facilitate its monitoring on a proactive basis.
8. The landlord should ensure it gives notice of any scaffolding that is to be erected outside its resident’s homes.
9. The landlord should review its compensation levels to ensure that they take into account all circumstances and cumulative impact of any failings identified and ensure that staff understand when they may need to apply discretion to exceed its standard range.
10. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 28 days of this report.