Hyde Housing Association Limited (202108054)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108054

Hyde Housing Association Limited

31 August 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 the resident’s concerns about a contractor using the drive at her former property.
    2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about two missed appointments at her current property.
    3. the landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s guttering at her former property.

Jurisdiction

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) sets out what complaints the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate.
  2. Paragraph 42 (a) of the scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a members complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable time scale.”

  1. Whilst the resident raised the issue of guttering in need of repair with this service there is no evidence that the resident had exhausted her landlord’s complaint procedure. This service is, therefore, unable to consider the landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s guttering at her former property.

 

Background

  1. The resident moved to her current property in May 2021 and has a weekly periodic tenancy.
  2. The resident complained to her landlord on 12 August 2021 about contractors missing two appointments on 9 and 10 August 2021 in respect of plumbing works. The landlord agreed to ask the contractor to investigate and opened a complaint.
  3. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 1 of their complaint process on 6 September 2021, after the resident contacted it to chase a response. On the same day, the resident asked the landlord to chase up a complaint she raised in February 2021. This was about the landlord’s contractor using the drive at her former property and parking there without her permission.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 October 2021 and said it would investigate the reason for the missed appointments and the complaint raised in February 2021. On the same day, the resident provided her landlord with images of a van parked on her drive. She also sent with this a screenshot of a text message alerting her to an appointment in October 2021.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 1 November 2021 and stated:
    1. it accepted that there had been a lack of communication about visits.
    2. that the contractor parking on her drive was not standard procedure and the individual would be identified so their supervisor could discuss this with them to ensure it did not happen again.
    3. the appointments scheduled for 9 August 2021 and 10 August 2021 did not go ahead because of staff sickness, however, the resident should have been informed and the appointments rebooked.
    4. it had been told the contractor had no booking for 2 October 2021. It said the contractor’s IT team would investigate this.
    5. it offered £100 for the failures identified.
  6. The resident refused the £100 offered on 3 November 2021 and asked for a review of the decision. She expressed dissatisfaction at the length of time it had taken the landlord to respond. The resident disclosed to her landlord that she had taken days off work to be at home for the missed appointments in August 2021.
  7. On 15 November 2021, the landlord refused to review the stage 1 decision. It stated that it had considered the information provided, had spoken with those involved, and made its decision under its policy. The landlord indicated it could not see any evidence the resident reported the contractor parking on her drive on 4 October 2021. It refused to review its decision as no new information had been provided and it stated that it had answered the resident’s points thoroughly in its stage 1 response.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation. She expressed concern that the compensation the landlord offered did not adequately reflect the frustration and inconvenience caused. The resident was also unhappy about the quality of the landlord’s investigation and complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy required it to respond to the complaint at stage 1 within 20 working days. This policy required someone more senior to review her complaint within 20 working days to determine whether it should proceed to stage 2. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which requires responses within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s contractor parking on her drive without permission in February 2021. The landlord took nearly nine months to respond. This was an unreasonably long delay and one that had no explanation. The landlord’s delay in responding amounted to maladministration.
  3. The Ombudsman expects landlords to learn from outcomes and to put things right when things go wrong. The landlord explained at stage 1 that the contractor was wrong to park on her drive. It informed the resident what it would do to ensure this does not happen again. This was an appropriate action to take however the landlord’s response did not acknowledge the length of time it had taken to deal with this. This would have added to the resident’s frustration.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response explained the reasons why no one attended the appointments made on 9 August 2021 and 10 August 2021. The resident would have been clear about what went wrong and what action the landlord would take. It also offered an apology on behalf of its contractor and explained how it would improve which was appropriate.
  5. The resident was concerned about the quality of the landlord’s investigation. This was because the landlord indicated that its contractor could not find any evidence of a missed appointment on 2 October 2021. This was despite the resident sending her landlord a text confirming the appointment.
  6. At stage 2 the landlord also stated the contractor had not received a report about one of its operatives parking on her drive on 4 October 2021. This is despite the landlord’s previous acceptance that a contractor had parked on her drive.
  7. It would have been appropriate for the landlord, considering this evidence, to have explained to the resident the reason the text was sent in error and to have not questioned the contractor parking on her drive.
  8. The Ombudsman expects landlords to carefully investigate and respond to any disputed or unclear facts. In this instance, it was unclear what investigation the landlord had conducted with the contractor to establish when the incident was reported. It was also unclear why the date the contractor parked on the resident’s drive was important given the landlord had accepted this happened.
  9. The missed appointments in August 2021 caused the resident inconvenience as she had to take time off work and arrange for someone to be present at her property.
  10. The landlord offered the resident £100 for the poor communication, time, and trouble it caused and for the delays in dealing with her complaint. There was a failure on the part of the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint promptly and there is evidence their investigation could have been more extensive.
  11. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer of £100 did not adequately reflect the landlord’s level of service failure and should be improved. This is because the length of time taken to deal with the complaint was excessive, contrary to its policy and because of the failure to explicitly acknowledge the delays at stage 1. This would have added to the resident’s frustration and annoyance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a contractor using the drive at her former property. This is due to the extensive delay in acknowledging this complaint and the length taken to address it.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about two missed appointments. This is because of a lack of acknowledgement about the impact the missed appointments had on the resident in terms of wasted time.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident the sum of £300 within 28 days of this determination comprised of:
    1. £ 150 for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint about the contractor parking.
    2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the two missed appointments in August 2021 and the appointment confirmation sent in error in October 2021.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review how appointments are notified to residents by text to ensure that messages are accurate, and any cancellations are notified in advance.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews how it logs and shares information about complaints with contractors to ensure accurate records are maintained.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint policy to ensure that it complies with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  4. The landlord may wish to review the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies to ensure its compensation policy is consistent with it.