Hyde Housing Association Limited (202115651)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115651

Hyde Housing Association Limited

27 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of major works to the windows and the redecoration of the communal areas at the resident’s building.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been the leaseholder of the property, for which the landlord is the freeholder, since September 2009. The property is a one bedroom, ground floor flat in a five-storey building, constructed in 1916; the lease commenced on 24 May 2004.
The landlord has acknowledged that it has not carried out any major works or maintenance to the resident’s block since it took ownership of the estate approximately 20 years ago, and that it had first presented its intention to enter into agreements for the replacement of all windows and completion of cyclical repairs to the communal areas in 2013.
On 11 May 2018, a window condition survey was carried out at the resident’s building. The report noted that 53% of the units required replacing, 44% could be repaired and 3% currently required no works. The report put forward three options: to repair and redecorate; or to replace with softwood timber double glazed units; or to replace with uPVC double glazed units to the rear. The report recommended to replace all windows on a like for like basis in regard to style.
An initial consultation meeting was held with leaseholders in June 2018.
In January 2019, a structural report on the temporary propping of front bays for proposed window replacement was carried out. The report concluded that it would be necessary to provide temporary propping to support the building loads during the works to remove the existing windows and replace with new ones.
The Ombudsman expects a formal complaint to be made within a reasonable time of the matter complained about occurring, normally within six months. Therefore, whilst these historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events following the pre-consultation meeting with leaseholders on 20 June 2019, approximately nine months prior to the resident’s formal complaint of 27 March 2020.

Summary of events.

The landlord held a pre-consultation meeting with leaseholders on 20 June 2019 following which it wrote to all leaseholders on 4 July 2019 to thank them for attending and to provide an information pack which included:
1. Minutes from the meeting on 20 June 2019.
2. A FAQ sheet complied of questions received on the day and from those who sent their apologies.
3. A copy of the current cost matrix, which the landlord advised was only indicative and that the final costs would be issued during the Section 20 consultation.
4. A copy of the 2018 window survey and the January 2019 structural report, a brochure from the main window contractor and data sheets from the timber and aluminium subcontractors.
The letter went on to explain that the contract was being let under the landlord’s existing framework which had been consulted on during procurement of its existing qualifying long-term agreements. The landlord said that having assessed the costs and after listening to the feedback given at the meeting on 20 June 2018, it proposed the replacement of the windows to the front and side of the building with timber and to the rear with uPVC, the replacement of all doors, excluding the main front communal front door, cyclical redecoration and repairs to external and internal communal areas and to replace the flooring to all internal communal areas. The landlord said that it intended to apply for planning permission in early August 2019 and invited leaseholders to comment on the proposals by 26 July 2019. The landlord said that observation would be responded to by 2 August 2019 and that it had sample windows which the residents could arrange to view.
On 26 July 2019, the leaseholders of the block, which included the resident, sent a joint response to the landlord’s letter of 4 July 2019. The letter stated that the leaseholders had a number of concerns regarding the major works proposed by the landlord and asked the landlord to pause those plans. The leaseholders said that:
1. The 2018 window condition survey was flawed, stating that it did not give a true picture of the current state of the windows.
2. They wanted the landlord to consult with them further in order to address their concerns before it progressed with the project.
3. They objected to and rejected the justification provided for the major works proposed and questioned whether the proposed solutions were reasonable and proportionate.
4. They objected to the appointment of the main window contractor without other quotes or options.
On 12 August 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had received several responses and enquiries following its letter of 4 July 2019 which it was currently preparing its response to. The landlord confirmed that it would not be placing any orders with contractors or submitting a planning application at this stage.
On 27 March 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord about its failure to repair and maintain the windows and communal areas of his block. The resident said that an independent survey had been carried out which noted ‘‘externally generally poor with poor common parts’’ which resulted in a reduction in the value of his property of £50,000 until these works were completed. The resident said that these works had been notified and planned since January 2014. However, after six years of planning, consultation and surveys no works had commenced. Additionally, despite identifying the need for these works in 2013-14 no cyclical maintenance, remedial or interim repairs had been completed on the windows or within the communal areas allowing them to deteriorate further.
On 23 June 2020, the landlord wrote to resident to say that whilst it had hoped to provide the resident with a formal response to his complaint on 25 June 2020, it would need a little more time to check the details and so the date for its response had been moved to 14 July 2020.
On 13 August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord as he had not received the landlord’s response, which it had said it aimed to issue by 14 July 2020. The landlord responded on 21 August 2020 attaching a letter it said had been sent to the resident on 28 July 2020, in which again said that it needed more time to look at the issues the resident had raised and would hope to give him its response by 25 August 2020.
On 25 August 2020 the landlord again wrote to the resident advising that it still needed more time to look at the issues and that it would aim to give him an update by 8 September 2020.
The resident chased the landlord again for its response on 29 September 2020 and the landlord issued its Stage one response on 23 October 2020, in which it said that:
1. Due to the unprecedented times, all its major works programmes were under review.
2. That it could find no record that it had carried out any cyclical decoration at the resident’s building since the stock transfer of the block.
3. It would not comment on independent surveys.
4. Over the last couple of years, it had worked with leaseholder to establish works and programmes, but had not had agreement to move forward with this.
5. The resident’s concerns and issues with regards to programme and expenditure had been discussed with its Contract Manager and Property Services teams and that it would continue to work with and update leaseholders accordingly, although at that time it could not provide any further information or specific dates.
On 28 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord requesting that his complaint be escalated to stage two. The resident said that:
1. The landlord had failed to identify and take into account the two window surveys the landlord itself had commissioned which highlighted the extent of the poor repair and that if this matter had been properly investigated these would have been considered.
2. It had been three months since the landlord’s stage one response and no further correspondence had been received nor action taken in relation to these works and repairs, contrary to the landlord’s undertakings that it would continue to work with leaseholders and update residents and that it would attend to look at issues in the communal areas.
3. They had deliberately waited three months to escalate their complaint in order to provide the landlord with sufficient opportunity to remedy the concerns raised and that it was extremely disappointing that it had failed to act.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 25 May 2021, and said that it would provide its Stage two response by 23 June 2021.
On 23 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had taken longer than expected to complete its investigation of his complaint and that it hoped to provide a full reply by 21 July 2021.
On 15 July 2021, the landlord submitted a report to its Asset Management Approval Panel. The reported stated that the works had been reviewed and re–priced by the landlord’s new cyclical redecoration contractor and it would be completing works to the windows which were in a poor condition. The report noted that it was the landlord’s intention to deliver these works in the current financial year.
The landlord issued its final response on 21 July 2021. The landlord said that it was confident that it had taken the right steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and had responded appropriately to these in line with its policies and building regulations. It also said that it acknowledged that it could have handled the resident’s complaint much more efficiently for which it would like to offer him £100 compensation. The landlord said that as it could not investigate matters which occurred more than six months previously it was unable to provide a detailed investigation into the historic issues. With regards to what had happened, the landlord said that:
1. It acknowledged that no major works or maintenance has been carried out since it took ownership of the estate approximately 20 years ago.
2. The rest of the estate was repainted between 2014 and 2017, but the resident’s block was not included due to its intention to enter into agreements for the replacement of all windows and completion of cyclical repairs to the communal areas, which was first presented to all residents in 2013.
3. An initial survey was carried out by its consultant with the findings being issued in May 2018. This concluded that 53% of the window and door units required full replacement, 44% being repairable and just 3% not requiring any action at all.
4. It held a consultation meeting with everyone on the estate in June 2018 to give everyone a chance to express their opinions. There were general needs tenants who wanted new double glazed windows, some leaseholder who wanted the works done but raised concerns on cost and affordability, and other leaseholders that did not want the work at all.
5. A structural report on the temporary propping needed for the front bays for the windows to be replaced was carried out in January 2019.
6. A pre-consultation meeting was held with the Leaseholders June 2019, to again discuss the options, providing costs for each and samples of the windows.
7. Following this meeting a number of complaints from leaseholders were received, objecting to the work proposed with some suggesting the existing should be repaired and redecorated instead. From this it commissioned a second survey in October 2019 this time from inside the flats to view the condition of the windows. The landlord said that it understood that it had not communicated with any residents since August 2019.
With regards to what it intended to do going forward, the landlord said that:
1. It had listened to the concerns raised about the cost to leaseholders of replacing the window, and the financial burden that would place on them and had therefore considered alternative works, based on the survey that was carried out in May 2018. The landlord said it had identified a number of timber windows that could be repaired, however the metal windows to the rear of the central part of the terrace were beyond repair.
2. With regards to the cyclical decoration, it had recently appointed a new cyclical decorations contractor and had arranged for them to carry out a survey with regards to the repainting of the building. The landlord said that this contractor had been procured on much more favourable rates which meant that the previous costs it had obtained for redecorating and scaffolding of the building had been reduced without a compromise in quality.
3. It had submitted a proposal to its Asset Management Approval Panel and as soon as it knew the outcome, more details on how it planned to proceed would be shared with all residents.
4. It would know more shortly, in terms of a plan of action with regards to the internal cyclical decorations and if it were to proceed with works it would work with its contractor to develop a programme of works which it would share with all residents.
5. The landlord provided details of a named point of contact, who would be overseeing the works and who the resident could contact.
6. It appreciated that there would be an argument that it had failed to properly maintain the block and agreed with the resident that this had likely been a contributing factor. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident believed that part of the reason he had lost a potential sale of his property the previous year was due to the condition of the building. The landlord said that, whilst it could not accept responsibility for this, it acknowledged that the building did require some attention and that it could only apologise for its failures to maintain it for the resident.

Events following the landlord’s final response.

These matters have been considered for context and are summarised below:
On 23 July 2021, and in response to a query raised by the resident, the named point of contact emailed the resident to confirm that it would not be painting rotten timber window frames but would repair any section of rot before decoration. Following this email, the resident asked that a communication be sent to all residents to confirm that the front windows would no longer be replaced and the rationale behind this. The resident said that there had still been no communication with all residents since August 2019 and a lot of residents still had no idea what was happening with this project.
On 23 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns that his request for an update on the works be provided in writing to all impacted residents, had not been actioned by the landlord.
The resident referred his complaint to this service on 8 October 2021.
This service has had sight of an internal landlord email, dated 19 November 2021, which confirms that it had still not communicated its plans to residents and had not commenced the Section 20 process. The landlord said that it would share its proposals with all residents by the end of March 2022.
In a telephone conversation with this service on 25 July 2022, the resident said that he was aware that the landlord had told this service that it would provide an update by March 2022, but it had not done so.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord behaved reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman’s role is also to consider whether the landlord’s complaint response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of major works to the windows and the redecoration of the communal areas at the resident’s building.

The landlord has an obligation under the lease to repair and keep in good order and condition the structure, exterior and common parts of the building, including window frames and internal communal areas.
In May 2018 an initial survey of the windows was carried out and that concluded that 53% of the window and door units required full replacement, 44% being repairable and just 3% not requiring any action at all.
When such a survey is carried out and highlights a requirement for any works to be carried out, it would be reasonable for the landlord to ensure that these are followed through with, within a reasonable period of time and to ensure that it provides regular communication and updates to the resident about the works.
The Ombudsman also expects landlord to:
1. To monitor the progress of those works, ensure that these are followed through with, within a reasonable period of time and addressing any issues or delays as they occurred.
2. Advise the resident of its findings, what actions, if any, it intends to take as a result and to provide the resident with an approximate timescale as to when it envisages those actions to be completed.
3. Provide residents with regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and the expected date of completion.
Following the report of May 2018, the landlord held a pre-consultation with leaseholders in June 2018, arranged for a structural report to be carried out in January 2019 and then held a further pre-consultation meeting with residents on 20 June 2019.
Between August 2019 and July 2021, the landlord took further reasonable steps to progress the matter, commissioning a second, internal survey of the windows in October 2019, following it said the feedback it had received residents, and submitting a report to its Asset Management Approval Panel on 15 July 2021, noting its intention to deliver the window and redecoration works in the current financial year and procuring a new cyclical decorations contractor.
It is recognised that major works can take some time plan and implement, and that both informal and Section 20 consultation can add to the time needed. It is also recognised that Covid 19 had an impact across the sector. It is therefore important that these types of works are progressed and resolved effectively and the resident is kept up to date with what is happening.
However, by the time of its final response the landlord had still not provided residents with an update as to any actions it had taken or an approximate timescale as to when it envisaged the works might be completed. This was despite being on notice as of May 2018, three years earlier, that works to the windows were required, and, as the landlord acknowledged in its final response, that no cyclical works had been carried out at the resident’s building for approximately 20 years.
Three years was not a reasonable time for the landlord still be at a point where it was unable to provide residents with an approximate timescale as to when the required works might be completed. This evidences a lack of urgency on its part to meet its obligations under the lease and to recognise the impact the continuing delay was having on the resident.
In its final response, the landlord did advise that it was awaiting for the outcome of the Asset Management Approval Panel and made reference to the cyclical decorations. However, these were vague in respect of timescales and exactly what works it was considering.
In addition to the landlord’s failure to progress the required works within a reasonable period of time, the landlord’s communication with the resident about these works was also not reasonable, having failed on multiple occasions to keep residents informed about what was happening, what action it had taken and what action it intended to take.
It is noted that the landlord’s communication with residents following the meeting of 20 June 2019 was open and transparent, providing the resident with minutes of the meeting, copies of the 2018 and 2019 reports, information from contractors, an indication of potential costs and a list of frequently asked questions. The landlord also provided information about the proposed works and timescales for both its application for planning permission, which it said it would submit in early August 2019, and asked the leaseholders to comment on its proposals by 26 July 2019, which they did.
However, following the landlord’s response of 12 August 2019, there is no evidence of the landlord providing residents with the promised update, the landlord also failed to either acknowledge or address this matter at the time of its stage one response and by its final response of 21 July 2021, almost two years later, whilst it acknowledged this failure, the landlord failed to apologise for this and for any distress and inconvenience this may have caused.
There is also no evidence of the landlord providing residents with any updates regarding the second internal survey in October 2019, which it also failed to mention in its stage one response 23 October 2020, over a year later.
In its final response, the landlord also failed to recognise that it had not complied with the undertaking it had made in its stage one response that it would continue to work with and update all leaseholders accordingly. Between the landlord’s stage one response, on 23 October 2020, and its final response of 21 July 2021, a period of nine months, there is no evidence of any further communication by the landlord to residents regarding the works.
It is noted that at the point of its final response the landlord provided the resident with a named point of contact. However, following an initial positive response to the resident’s request for information about the works that would be carried out on the timber window frames, despite the resident requesting that they do so, the named contact failed to provide the requested update to all residents.
Having considered the available evidence I am satisfied that there were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the works required and that those delays caused the resident unnecessary upset and distress for which the landlord should compensate the resident. This was compounded by the landlord’s failure to provide the resident with reasonable updates as to what was happening with the works, explanations for any delays or appropriate timescales for when it expected the works to be completed.
The Ombudsman expects landlord’s not only to recognise where its service has not met the requirements but also to learn from the failures identified in order to improve its service going forward. However, it is clear from the information provided by both the landlord and the resident, that the landlord has failed to learn from its acknowledged communication failures with residents, having confirmed to this service in November 2021 that it had still not communicated its plans to residents and that it did not provided the residents with the update it said it would in March 2022.
These failures have resulted in a finding of maladministration, for which a number of orders have been made.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord has a two stage complaints policy which states that the landlord with aim to respond to stage 1 formal complaint investigations within 10 working days and stage two formal complaints within 20 working days. The policy states that at both stages, if it needs extra time to complete the investigation it will explain this to the customer and given a date for its response, which will be no later than a further 10 working days.
Following the resident’s initial complaint of 27 March 2020, the landlord failed to provide its stage one response until 23 October 2020, seven months later. In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord should have provided its stage one response by 10 April 2020.
It is acknowledged that the impact of Covid may have had an impact on the landlord’s ability to provide a response in accordance with its complaints policy at that time. However:
1. It was not until 23 June 2020, three months after the resident’s initial complaint of 23 March 2020, that the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it would be unable to provide its response until 14 July 2020.
2. The landlord failed to provide its response on 14 July 2020 and on 28 July 2020 and 25 August 2020, both times stating that it needed more time to provide its response. In its correspondence of 25 August 2020 the landlord told the resident that it would aim to give him an update by 8 September 2020.
3. The landlord did not provide the resident with an update as promised on 8 September and the resident therefore had to chase the landlord again on 29 September 2020. The landlord did then not provide its stage one response for a further which it then did not provide until 30 October 2020, a further 23 working days later.
It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy allows for the landlord to write to the resident to request more time to complete its investigation. However, the policy states that its response will be no later than a further 10 working days. In this case, overall, it took the landlord seven months to provide its stage one response. This was an excessive delay.
The resident requested that his complaint be escalated on 28 January 2021. Again the landlord failed to comply with its complaints policy, not providing its stage two response until 21 July 2021 six months later. Again this was an excessive delay.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that it could have handled the resident’s complaint much more efficiently for which it offered him £100 compensation. However, given the landlord’s significant failures to provide its complaint responses in accordance with its complaint procedure. £100 is not a proportionate to the level of the landlord’s failure.
The landlord’s failure to provide its responses in a timely manner not only caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident but also resulted in an unreasonable a delay in the resident being able to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman. Accordingly, further financial compensation is appropriate for the impact of this on the resident because the sum previously offered is not proportionate to the extreme complaint handling delays. An order has been made, below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of major works to the windows and the redecoration of the internal communal areas at the resident’s building.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord acknowledged its responsibility to repair, there were unreasonable delays in the progression of the works required which caused the resident unnecessary upset and distress over a prolong period of time. This was compounded by the landlord’s failure to provide the resident with reasonable explanations for those delays or appropriate timescales for when it expected the works to be completed. The landlord’s responses up to the point of its final response did not sufficiently address the impact and distress experienced by the resident nor did they demonstrate that their concerns had been taken seriously. The landlord also failed to evidence that it had learnt from its acknowledged communication failures.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its Complaints Policy, taking seven months to provide its stage one response and a further six months. This failure not only resulted in unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident but also unreasonable delayed him being able to bring his complaint to this service. Whilst the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation, that was not a proportionate to the level of the landlord’s failure.

Orders and recommendations

That within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is to take the following action and provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman within that period:
1. A senior manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of:
  1. £300 for the delays in it progressing the works to the window and redecoration works.
  2. £200 for the communication failings identified in this report.
  3. £200 for its complaint handling failures, made up of the £100 it offered its final response for its complaint handling failures (If it has not done so already), plus an additional £100.
3. Write to all residents in the resident’s block with a timeframe for when the window and communal redecoration will take place. This should include:
  1. Confirmation whether full planning permission has now been applied for. If not, the landlord is to provide a date by which an application will be made or provide an explanation as to why this is no longer required.
  2. Confirmation of when the landlord plans to carry out section 20 consultation and to provide a timeframe for this. If the landlord has no plans to carry out Section 20 consultation, it is to provide an explanation as to why this it is not doing so.
  3. The dates it expects its contractors to be on site for both the window and redecoration works.
  4. The date by which it expects the window and redecoration works will be completed.
4. Provide regular updates to all residents on a monthly basis until all the required works have been completed.