Hyde Housing Association Limited (202107688)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107688

Hyde Housing Association Limited

20 January 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 2 October 2020 about the communication between the landlord, its contractor and himself. He said that it had previously inspected the property’s kitchen and found that smoke detectors had not been fitted. Since then, the resident had received no communication about what would be done to address this. He felt that this was a failure on its part to comply with fire safety procedure. 
  3. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s contractor as they had missed appointments, or attended without knowing what work was to done and left again without doing any work. He said that this had caused him to lose time from work and he was unhappy with the landlord’s customer service and communication. 
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 October 2020 to report that its contractor had attended that day with the wrong information. The worker had attended to repair a carbon monoxide alarm instead of installing one.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 October 2020 to provide an update on his complaint. It acknowledged that it had inspected the property in March 2020 when it found that a smoke alarm and carbon monoxide detector were required, and that it needed to provide previously agreed decoration vouchers to him.
  6. The landlord confirmed that it had visited the property again on 9 October 2020 and was awaiting the report from this. It also confirmed that it was awaiting the outcome of an investigation it had raised with its contractor. It informed the resident that it had instructed a different contractor to install a carbon monoxide alarm and that it would arrange for decoration vouchers to be sent to him. The landlord said it would provide its stage one response to the resident by 2 November 2020 once it had carried out an investigation of the issues he had raised.
  7. The installation of the carbon monoxide alarm was booked for 15 October 2020 and the resident reported to the landlord on 26 October 2020 that this was not fitted. It arranged another appointment for 28 October 2021 which he reported was not attended. The landlord’s records noted that this was attended late after informing the resident of the delay but it could not gain access on arrival.
  8. The landlord sent a holding response to the resident on 2 November 2020 in which it provided him with a new appointment on 10 November 2020 for installation of the smoke detector and advised that another appointment would be confirmed for installation of the carbon monoxide alarm. It said it was awaiting confirmation of his decoration vouchers being sent.
  9. The resident informed the landlord on 10 November 2021 that the appointment that day to install the smoke detector had failed as the worker did not have the correct parts to complete the work. He also reported that day that water was leaking from the overflow pipe from his neighbour’s property into his back garden. The resident said that he had reported it three times previously to the landlord.
  10. On 16 November 2021, the landlord fitted the carbon monoxide alarm.
  11. On 25 November 2020, the resident asked for an update on the water dripping into his back garden from his neighbour. He expressed concern that this had caused a build-up of moss and may become a hazard as temperatures grew colder.
  12. After an appointment was made with the resident to install the smoke detector on 27 November 2021, he emailed the landlord later that day to advise that no workers had attended. Consequently, he wanted to escalate his complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure.
  13. The resident left a message with the landlord on 9 December 2020 to report that its worker had attended that day to carry out some work to his kitchen cupboard and they had highlighted some concerns with the safety and condition of the kitchen. He asked to discuss with it how to address these repairs.
  14. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 December 2020 to advise that it required more time to assess the repair issues in his kitchen. It confirmed that both the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms had now been fitted and advised that it would provide its final response to him by 20 January 2021.
  15. The landlord sent a further holding response to the resident on 19 January 2021 to explain it needed more time to confirm its plan for addressing repair issues in the kitchen. It said it would provide a full response by 2 February 2021.
  16. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 22 January 2021 in which it acknowledged that it should have completed the work sooner, communicated with him more effectively and provided decorating vouchers to him sooner. It noted that he escalated the complaint to the final stage of its procedure due to the lack of progress.
  17. The landlord confirmed that the carbon monoxide and smoke alarms had been fitted and he had been provided with the outstanding decoration voucher. It relayed that, after inspecting the kitchen on 13 January 2021, it had raised work to replace this. The landlord apologised for the delay in addressing the leak from his neighbour’s overflow pipe and confirmed that it had now liaised with his neighbour to address this.
  18. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a “clear and unacceptable delay” in fitting the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms and its records were unclear on the reason for this. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to him and offered compensation of £350, made up of £100 for distress and inconvenience, £100 for delays in completing the works and handling the complaint, £50 for poor communication and £50 for time and trouble in pursuing the matter. This breakdown was inconsistent with the total compensation figure offered.
  19. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 February 2021 to say that he continued to be dissatisfied with its handling of the complaint, that the kitchen was only now considered for renewal despite previous inspections. He said that water continued to drip into his garden from his neighbour’s overflow pipe. The resident asked for an itemised breakdown of how it had calculated the compensation offer it had made.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs responsibilities webpage confirms that it is responsible for the installation and testing of hard-wired smoke alarms. It is also responsible for maintaining and clearing external gutters, drains and pipework. 
  2. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy statement provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At the first and final stages of this procedure, the landlord is to provide a formal response to the resident within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property.

  1. The landlord has a legal obligation to ensure that a working smoke alarm is fitted in the property. A carbon monoxide alarm is required to be fitted in any room used as living accommodation which also contains an appliance that burns solid fuel. It was unclear whether a solid fuel burning appliance was present in the resident’s property, nevertheless, it was not disputed that the landlord agreed to install a smoke alarm and carbon monoxide alarm after an inspection in March 2020. As it had agreed to install these, it committed to following through with the installation.
  2. After the resident raised his complaint with the landlord, appointments on 8, 15 and 28 October 2020 were unsuccessful until the installation was completed on 16 November 2020. Installation of the smoke alarm was unsuccessful on 10 November 2020 before being confirmed completed on 27 November 2020.
  3. Given that these alarms were identified as being necessary in March 2020 and were instrumental in maintaining the fire safety of the property, there was a failure by the landlord to act promptly to install these. While there was no evidence that these repairs were an immediate threat to the resident’s safety, and therefore did not need to be treated as an emergency repair, the landlord should have completed this work in a reasonable time. The Ombudsman considers that 28 calendar days is a reasonable time to complete routine repair work. The landlord therefore delayed excessively as it took approximately eight months to complete the installation of the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms.
  4. The resident reported the leak from his neighbour’s property onto his garden on 10 November 2020. As confirmed by the landlord’s repairs responsibilities webpage, it had an obligation to investigate and maintain external pipework. While the resident said that he had reported this leak previously, there was evidence that the landlord took at least two and a half months before confirming it had addressed this, in its final stage complaint response on 22 January 2021. This was, again, an excessive delay by the landlord to address repairs for which it was responsible.
  5. The resident reported concerns about the condition of his kitchen to the landlord on 9 December 2020 and it inspected this on 13 January 2021 before confirming in its final response on 22 January 2021 that it would be replacing the kitchen. Considering the holiday period, the landlord inspected the kitchen within a reasonable time and raised appropriate remedial work, therefore there was no evidence of a failure in its handling of this. 
  6. The landlord offered £250 compensation to the resident (after discounting the £100 it offered for complaint handling failure) for its failures in the handling of repairs. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Remedies-Guidance.pdf provides for compensation awards of between £250 and £700 for instances where there has been “considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant”. This may include “a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant” and “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs”.
  7. Therefore, to address the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble taken by the resident in pursuing the repairs, compensation of £400 should be paid to him. This is to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to install essential safety equipment in the resident’s property over a significant period of time, which subsequently confirmed to be completed. There was also no explanation provided to the resident about how these failures arose and the landlord will be recommended to review its processes for the management of its contractors to ensure that it avoids such failures in future.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. As per the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy statement above, it was to respond to the resident’s complaints at the first and final stages within 20 working days. The landlord did not provide a stage one response to the resident by 27 November 2020 when he escalated the complaint to the final stage, 40 working days after his initial complaint. This was an excessive delay.
  2. The landlord’s final stage complaint response was provided to the resident on 22 January 2021, 37 working days after his escalation request on 27 November 2020. This was again an excessive delay. Delays in the resolution of complaints may lead to uncertainty on the resident’s part and additional distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, mentioned above, provides for awards of £50 to £250 compensation in cases where “there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”. This may include a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”.
  3. Given that the landlord did eventually address the resident’s concerns and raised repairs appropriately, it is considered that the delayed resolution of the complaint did not have a significant impact on the resident. Therefore the £100 compensation offered by the landlord in its final stage complaint response was a reasonable offer of redress to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delayed complaint response.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs in the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer to redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord delayed excessively in the installation of essential safety installations in the resident’s property and was not able to explain how this excessive delay had arisen.
  2. The landlord acknowledged its delay in handling the resident’s complaint and offered a reasonable and proportionate level of redress to recognise this.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days, the landlord should:
    1. Pay £400 compensation to the resident for its failures in the handling of repairs. This represents an additional £150 increase of the original offer of £250.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered to the resident in its final response for the handling of his complaint. This is in addition to the £400 mentioned above.
    2. Review its process for the management of contractors and repair reports to ensure that repairs are progressed promptly and within a reasonable timescale, particularly those which are required by law.