Hyde Housing Association Limited (202126119)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126119

Hyde Housing Association Limited

8 September 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 handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom including, amongst others:
  1. replacement of the radiator,
  2. re-tiling,
  3. installing the resident’s new toilet.
2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
On 29 May 2020, the resident reported a number of repair issues, including that the bathroom wall needed re-plastering. On 3 July 2020, the resident chased the landlord as she did not get any update.
An inspection was booked in August 2020, where contractors advised the resident that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they did not have the necessary materials available to complete the works. A new appointment was booked for October 2020, but was delayed for the same reason. The radiator was, however, removed at this time in readiness for the plastering works.
The resident was informed in December 2020 that the materials required to re-plaster were now available, however, she had to chase the landlord to get an appointment booked. An appointment was booked in February 2021, but contractors did not attend. Another appointment was arranged, but the landlord sent a painter instead of plasterers. Following concerns from the resident, the landlord queried what it could offer to remedy its failures. The resident requested for the landlord to install her new toilet, which she had previously purchased herself. The landlord subsequently declined this request as it would require significant work due to the size of the toilet. The landlord instead offered to relocate the radiator to prevent the resident from touching her knees against it when sitting down, which was fitted in September 2021.
On 10 June 2021, the resident made a formal complaint about the progresses of the works, the missed appointments, and the lack of communication from the landlord’s contractors, as she always had to call to chase information. The landlord, in its stage one response issued on 19 July 2021, acknowledged and apologised for the frustration caused to the resident because of the delays and the lack of communication. The landlord offered £350 compensation for the time and trouble in pursuing the matter and the distress caused, and £50 for the delay in acknowledging her complaint. The resident later requested an escalation of her complaint. As part of her complaint escalation, the resident reported that the bathtub needed realigning and the bathroom to be retiled. The landlord agreed to these works and the landlord advised the resident that an appointment was booked to complete the works on 28 October 2021.
The contractors however did not attend on the agreed date and the landlord subsequently booked a new appointment in November 2021. The bathtub realignment was completed in November 2021, however, the works to the bathroom tiling remained outstanding.
The resident referred her complaint to this service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of progress and updates. The resident also requested confirmation from the landlord that it will pay for additional tiling works as the tiles were damaged by contractors while undertaking the works.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s complaint procedure states that once a resident raises a formal complaint, its Complaint Officer will provide a formal acknowledgement to the customer within two working days. The landlord aims to respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days (two weeks) of receipt of the complaint. In some cases, responding within this timescale may not be possible. If extra time is needed to complete the investigation, the landlord will explain this to the resident and give an updated timeframe for the response. This will be no later than a further 10 working days. Stage two response will be issued within 20 working days (four weeks) of an escalation. In exceptional circumstances, it may take up to an additional 10 working days.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Procedure Policy notes that ‘anytime repairs’, namely any responsive repair that is not an emergency repair, are to be carried out within 20 working days and within the landlord’s contractor’s working hours.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy also notes that the landlord is responsible for a number of repairs such as baths, basins, and sinks; toilet flushing systems and waste pipes leaks; internal walls; water heaters, fireplaces and fitted fires; and installations for space heating. The resident is responsible for internal decoration, components fitted by the resident, and toilet seats.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom

It is not disputed that there have been several delays throughout the course of the works. The resident first reported that the bathroom needed re-plastering on 20 May 2020. The resident had to chase the landlord several times to gather information on appointments. The resident was informed in July 2020 that contractors did not have the required materials due to the COVID-19 pandemic and booked an appointment in October 2020. In October 2020, the contractors realised that more materials were needed and advised the resident that their supplier was still closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Ombudsman notes that in December 2020, the resident was informed that the job was authorised and the materials were delivered, but the resident nevertheless had to chase the contractors again for an appointment to be booked. An appointment was booked only for February 2021. While the Ombudsman understands that the re-plastering works took more time due to a shortage in the necessary materials, in such circumstances, a landlord should regularly update the resident and is expected to explain the reasons for the further delays and provide a new timeframes. In this case, the resident had to chase the landlord to get any updates and further appointments. This would have left the resident frustrated and caused her unnecessary time and trouble.
An appointment was booked on February 2021 to re-plaster the resident’s bathroom, but the contractors did not attend that day. It is not evident why the appointment was missed as no explanation was provided. After that, the resident chased the landlord for another appointment, but the landlord mistakenly sent painters instead of plasterers. This demonstrates a clear lack of effective record keeping and communication between the landlord and its contractor’s, and unreasonably added to the delays to the works. Furthermore, whereas such failures may occasionally occur, the Ombudsman notes that there had been several other missed appointments relating to these works. The landlord appropriately investigated the issue with its contractors which confirmed that the missed appointments were not reasonable. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to adopt efficient measures to prevent this from happening again and to provide its position on compensation, however, the landlord did not do this. This will therefore be considered in the calculation of any compensation.
In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays and lack of communication, for which it apologised. However, in this case, the landlord repeatedly failed in its communication, and the resident had to repeatedly chase updates, call-backs and appointments, resulting in time and trouble for the resident.
The resident informed the landlord that she had to repeatedly take time off work to attend and provide access to the contractors, which given the repeated missed appointments, had been for nothing. She subsequently requested that appointments be booked on Saturdays only. While its repairs policy noted that appointments could only be made during working hours, the landlord appropriately used its discretion to agree to booking appointments on Saturdays. The Ombudsman notes that this reduced availability has contributed to the length of time it has taken to complete the works and this too has been taken into consideration when assessing the overall delays.
The resident also complained about the lack of communication regarding the installation of the toilet. Based on the evidence, it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the resident purchased a new toilet and requested the landlord to install it for her when the landlord ask how it could put things right given its failures. The landlord initially accepted, subject to further information and with the condition that the resident signed a disclaimer relating to its responsibility for the toilet following installation. It is evident that the resident purchased a toilet without initially discussing the specifications of the toilet with the landlord. The landlord subsequently refused to proceed with the installation because the toilet purchased by the resident was too big for the purpose, and significant additional works would be required for installation. It must be noted that according to the landlord’s Repairs Policy, the installation of the new toilet would be considered an improvement and not a repair given that the current toilet was functioning properly. While the landlord initially raised the resident’s expectations that it would install a new toilet, it is reasonable for the landlord to be able to consider the type of toilet before final consent, and it is not evident it discussed the type of toilet with the resident prior to her purchase. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the communication with the resident about the installation of the resident’s toilet and the ‘home improvement application’ had been poor. This resulted in creating confusion for the resident and added further frustration.
The Ombudsman notes that as a goodwill gesture, the landlord offered to change the radiator’s position so that the resident would not touch the radiator with her knees when sitting down. Again, this would not fall within the landlord’s responsibility and was a goodwill gesture showing a reasonable attempt by the landlord to remedy its failures. However, to fit the radiator, there were further delays, and the resident once again had to chase the landlord for updates. Moreover, the radiator was removed in October 2020 in readiness to plaster the wall, leaving the resident with a cold bathroom for almost one year, as the radiator was not reinstalled until 4 September 2021. Although the relocation of the radiator was a goodwill gesture, the Ombudsman would nevertheless expect the landlord to complete these works within a reasonable timeframe, and provide clear and timely communication to the resident, which it failed to do.
In her escalation request, the resident reported to the landlord that her bathtub needed to be realigned due to a gap and that the bathroom needed retiling. The landlord agreed to carry out these repairs, however, it once again failed to provide updates to the resident, and there were delays in completing the works. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the delay and booked an appointment to complete the works required.
However, the contractors that attended the resident’s property made a mistake tiling the bathroom. Therefore, the landlord booked another appointment to realign the bathroom and complete the tiling. The Ombudsman’s understanding is that the bathroom was realigned in November 2021, but the tiling works were still outstanding in February 2022. This shows again failings with the landlord’s its communications with the resident. Therefore, an order had been made for the landlord to investigate the works needed and provide a new timeframe to the resident.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
In its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged the further delays, the missed appointments, and its poor communication and apologised to the resident. The landlord offered an additional compensation of £100 in addition to the offer made in its stage one response, totalling £500 compensation for the delays. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation in recognition of the impact on the resident its delays had caused, and while the delays were extended in part by the availability of the resident to provide access, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount of compensation offered does not fully reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Based on the cumulative impact of the missed appointments, the length of time without updates regarding works such as the reinstallation of the radiator, the poor communication causing the resident to chase updates, and the landlord’s poor record keeping, an additional amount of £300 compensation is appropriate.

Complaint’s handling

The resident’s formal complaint was acknowledged in stages one and two outside the landlord’s timeframe policy. Furthermore, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord issued a stage one response after 28 working days. The landlord appropriately updated the resident about the delay to its response, for which it apologised and provided an explanation. In its stage one response, the landlord additionally attempted to put things right by offering £50 compensation for its delay in acknowledging the complaint.
The Ombudsman notes that the delay in acknowledging and issuing the complaints response may have caused further frustration to the resident. However, the landlord appropriately updated the resident, apologised for the delay, and provided new timeframes. The compensation awarded was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the delay in responding.
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 redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom including the replacement of the radiator, re-tiling and installing the resident’s new toilet.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to investigate what works it considers to be outstanding in relation to the tiling and provide the resident with a timeframe to complete the works.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £800 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble in pursuing information, the several missed appointments and the delay in installing the radiator in the resident’s bathroom.
This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £500. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord is to provide this service with evidence of compliance for all orders.

Recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord to reiterate its offer of £50 in relation to the complaints handling delays, if this is yet to be accepted.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record-keeping practices to ensure that accurate track if its repairs inspections are taken, along with the specific timescales set for each repair.