Hyde Housing Association Limited (202124277)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124277

Hyde Housing Association Limited

17 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the resident’s shower.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident is noted as being a wheelchair user with limited mobility.
3. The landlord’s records show that the resident initially reported that her adapted shower was not draining in February 2021, operatives attended at the time and cleared the drains. In June 2021, the resident reported that the shower was not working. Operatives established that the shower was falling off the wall and a replacement was installed on 3 August 2021. The evidence shows that the shower was replaced again on 9 August 2021 due to a water pressure issue and the resident continued to report that the new shower switched itself off after a short period throughout August 2021.
4. The resident raised a complaint in September 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her shower repairs. She noted that she had reported issues with the shower since early 2021 and was unable to use the shower from June 2021 until it was replaced. She also noted that cheap showers had been installed and they kept breaking down. She asked that a quality shower be installed to stop the repeated breakdowns and for compensation for the inconvenience caused by needing to travel to a friend’s house to use a shower. She later added that following the replacement of the shower for a third time in January 2022, which was the same make as the previous replacements, she had continued to experience the same issues and the shower turned itself off after ten minutes. She was also concerned that operatives had attended twice since the new shower had been installed in January 2022 and had attempted to replace the shower with one of the same make. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident had cancelled an appointment for this reason.
5. The landlord initially responded and apologised for the length of time it had taken to log the resident’s complaint. It explained that this was due to an increase in customer contact. It acknowledged that it could have completed repairs sooner and that the resident had reported that the newly installed shower was switching itself off in August 2021. It apologised for the lack of urgency and its poor communication in resolving the issues. It later acknowledged that when contractors attended in February 2022, it became clear that they were going to replace the shower with one of the same make again. It apologised that it had continued to take the same actions despite them not working each time and that it had failed to act proactively to avoid the need for repeated visits. It also acknowledged that there had been delays caused by its poor management of the situation such as occasions where an electrician and plumber needed to attend at the same time but did not. The landlord offered the resident £450 compensation, comprised of £50 for the delay in acknowledging her stage one complaint, £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £150 for the delays in resolving the issues. It also agreed to replace the shower with one of a different make, which was completed in April 2022. 
6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the new shower and wanted this to be reverted to the previous make. She was also dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord given the stress and inconvenience caused to her and her family. The landlord has since advised that it would not revert the shower back to the former make as it was currently functioning.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s shower.

7. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to baths, sinks and shower units. The policy sets out timescales for different types of repairs. Emergency repairs are to be made safe within four hours. Follow-on works may then be required and are to be attended within the landlord’s anytime repair timescale of 20 working days. This is also the timescale used for non-emergency repairs.
8. In this case, it is not disputed that the resident had experienced issues with her shower over a significant period of time. The landlord has acknowledged that it continued to take the same action in replacing the shower despite the repeated failures and noted that it had not taken proactive steps to avoid repeated visits. It also explained that there had been periods of delays where a joint visit with a plumber and electrician was required which did not happen. It also apologised to the resident for its failings and offered £400 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the delay in resolving the issues.
9. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
10. Following the resident’s report that her shower was not working on 23 June 2021, there was a delay in rectifying the issue until 3 August 2021 when the shower was initially replaced. This was outside of the landlord’s routine repair timescale by nine working days. It is understandable that the circumstances were likely to have caused a greater level of inconvenience for the resident in view of her vulnerabilities and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated the work as a priority as such. The landlord has acknowledged that the delay was the result of needing both an electrician and a plumber to carry out a joint visit and it experienced difficulties arranging this. It has confirmed that it has taken steps to improve its processes to avoid similar situations in future which was appropriate.
11. The shower was again replaced on 9 August 2021 within a reasonable timeframe following the resident’s reports of ongoing issues. The evidence shows that the resident reported further issues with the shower on 13 August 2021. An operative attended on the same day within a reasonable timescale and identified that the resident did not have power coming into the property, the meter was reset which rectified the issues. Following this, the evidence shows that the resident reported further issues with the shower turning itself off, however, there is a lack of evidence to show any further communication or investigation by the landlord until December 2021 when her formal complaint was acknowledged.
12. Whilst there are no contact records to confirm whether the resident had followed-up with the landlord, the evidence shows that the shower was identified as needing replacement again in January 2022 and that the resident had continued to experience issues during this time which is likely to have caused inconvenience.  Given the resident’s ongoing concerns regarding the shower, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered replacing the shower with one of a different make at an earlier stage in January 2022, in view of the ongoing issues. It acted appropriately by acknowledging that it had repeatedly taken the same actions despite the same issue occurring on each occasion.
13. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident has advised that she wanted the current shower to be reverted back to the former make as she did not get on with the new shower and was told that she could revert back if dissatisfied. The landlord has refused to do this as it stated that the current shower was functioning as expected. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, there is no documentary evidence which shows that the resident was informed that the shower could be changed back if she was dissatisfied, and no further evidence to suggest that the resident’s new shower is unfit for purpose.
14. The landlord would not be expected to replace the shower with the former make as the shower had been replaced with the former make on three occasions without success. Additionally, unless there are repair issues or a specific medical reason (supported by an Occupational Therapist’s report) that the new shower was not fit for purpose, the landlord would not be obliged to carry out improvements at the resident’s request. In view of the resident’s concerns regarding the new shower, it is recommended that the landlord arranges an appointment to review the performance of the resident’s shower to ensure that it is functioning as expected within four weeks.
15. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by installing a different make of shower and awarding £400 compensation. The landlord demonstrated that it learnt from outcomes by confirming that it was looking to improve its processes where more than one operative was required to attend a repair to prevent unnecessary delays. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which states that amounts between £100 and £600 are considered proportionate where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration but where there has been no permanent impact on the resident. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to address what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

16. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within two working days and respond within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. The policy confirms that it would not escalate a complaint to stage two where it had agreed that the complaint was upheld but the resident has requested increased compensation; this would be dealt with as a stage one resolution discussion. If a complaint is escalated to stage two, the landlord should respond within twenty working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new expected response date which should not exceed a further ten working days. 
17. In this case, the resident initially raised a formal complaint on 7 September 2021. The landlord failed to acknowledge the request until 2 December 2021, which was significantly outside of the landlord’s acknowledgement timescale by approximately 60 working days. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging and apologising for the delay and offering compensation to the resident. It explained that it had experienced an increase in customer contact which had caused delays in logging complaints. This is not considered a reasonable explanation and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the resident to explain that there would be a delay at an earlier stage in order to manage her expectations effectively. In addition, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint contributed to the delay in addressing her repair concerns between September and December 2021 which caused inconvenience to the resident.
18. Following acceptance of the resident’s stage one complaint on 2 December 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 26 January 2022. This was outside of the landlord’s published timescales by approximately 26 working days. Whilst the landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident on 20 December 2021 and 11 January 2022 to explain that it was taking longer than expected to complete its stage one investigation, the overall delay exceeded a further ten working days in line with its complaints policy and the overall timeframe was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident, who had been waiting over four months for a response.
19. The resident initially asked for her complaint to be escalated on 28 January 2022 as she was specifically dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord at this stage. The landlord acted appropriately by addressing the resident’s concerns as a compensation review in line with its complaints policy and issued its response within a reasonable timeframe.
20. The complaint was then escalated to stage two on 11 February 2022 following contact from the resident. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 6 April 2022, which was approximately 18 working days outside of its 20-working day timescale at stage two. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had successfully managed the resident’s expectations regarding any delay at this stage by contacting her which is likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident as her complaint remained unresolved.
21. In this case, the repair records provided by the landlord did not directly align with the information provided by the landlord within its complaint responses, or include specific information such as completion dates for repairs. In this particular case the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. However, the omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. It is therefore recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes to ensure that its repair records are comprehensive and include detailed information such as the date a repair was raised, the details of each appointment and completion date. It should also ensure that any communication from the resident (and any representatives) is clearly documented and can be provided to this Service on request.
22. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation in recognition of the delay in acknowledging the resident’s stage one complaint is not considered proportionate in view of the additional service failures identified. The landlord is to offer the resident an additional £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling, bringing the total offer of compensation for its complaint handling to £150. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as detailed above.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s shower prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

25. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This is in addition to the £450 compensation already offered, which should also be paid if it has not already done so.

Recommendations

26. It is recommended that the landlord arranges an appointment to review the performance of the resident’s shower within four weeks to ensure that it is functioning as expected in view of the resident’s ongoing concerns. It should then carry out any necessary repairs if required.
27. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its record keeping processes to ensure that its repair records are comprehensive and include detailed information such as the date a repair was raised, the details of each appointment and completion date. It should also ensure that communication from the resident (and any representatives) is clearly documented and can be provided to this Service on request.