Hyde Housing Association Limited (202127047)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127047

Hyde Housing Association Limited

16 August 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 response to the resident’s report of a leak underneath her kitchen sink and the subsequent repair issues.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The resident reported a leak under her kitchen sink on 17 December 2020. The resident raised a complaint on 2 August 2021, as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports. She advised that the landlord’s surveyor had attended to assess the damage and she had not been contacted with further information. Following the landlord’s stage one response, the resident escalated her complaint. In her complaint escalation, the resident raised additional repair issues, including the flooring and damage caused by the landlord’s contractor to the worktop and the kitchen cupboards.
  3. In the landlord’s stage two response, it advised that an appointment to complete outstanding repairs had been booked for 9 March 2022. It acknowledged the delays to the repairs and that its contractor’s workmanship had been poor. It offered compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor repairs, £125 for the delays to the repairs, £25 for the resident’s time and trouble reporting the issues and an additional £75 for the resident’s “patience with the complaints process.“ 
  4. In the resident’s complaint to this service, she advised that she remained dissatisfied with the length the landlord took to resolve the leak. She also disputed the landlord’s decision that it did not have to replace the kitchen pipes. She also advised she wanted more compensation due to the time and stress caused by the issue and as she had paid for the flooring replacement herself.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to promptly repair the leak has impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, events that impact health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of repairs and problems with the resident’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate for the courts.
  2. Consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Repairs

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s repair policy, it is responsible for repairs to water leaks. It also states that it will complete non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. As a result, the landlord is obligated to investigate the resident’s report of a leak and complete the required repairs.
  2. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what repairs would be appropriate and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake.
  3. The resident initially reported the repair issues to the landlord on 17 December 2020 and a contractor attended on 10 January 2021. The contractor identified two separate leaks in the pipework under the sink. In the landlord’s stage one response, it noted that an appointment took place on 24 February 2021 to renew a section of the pipework, during which the contractor advised the pipework would need to be replumbed. The landlord’s repair records note that two further out of hours appointments were attended on 8 June 2021 and 14 June 2021 following the resident’s reports that the leak was uncontainable. On each occasion, the contractor advised that additional follow on works were required. The landlord subsequently arranged follow on appointments for 18 June 2021 and 19 July 2021, however, these were unsuccessful as the contractor was unable to complete any works, as they required the water company to attend first. It was later determined, however, that this assessment was incorrect.
  4. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 23 September 2021, in which it noted the resident had confirmed the leak had been resolved. It is unclear from the repair records exactly when the leak was repaired. The Ombudsman would expect the 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.
  5. The landlord failed to adhere to its 20-working day timeframe to complete the repair, however it did comply with its emergency response timeframe and made the leak safe when it was uncontainable. The landlord also demonstrated that it took steps to repair the leak, as multiple appointments were arranged to establish the cause of the leak and complete follow on repairs. The landlord is expected to attempt to adhere to its repair timeframes, however, in some circumstances it is not possible. In such cases, the landlord should aim to complete the repair within a reasonable timeframe, provide reasons for any delays keep the resident regularly updated and implement interim solutions if possible.
  6. Although the landlord has not provided reasons for the delay, the repairs were likely to have been impacted by the COVID-19 lockdown. The resident reported the leak on numerous occasions between 17 December 2020 and 24 August 2021, which caused her additional time and effort in pursuing the repair. In her complaint, the resident raised that she was dissatisfied with the contractor’s poor communication and that they cancelled appointments without providing notice. The landlord is responsible for the conduct and service provided by its staff and contractors, so it should ensure the resident is regularly updated. Therefore, although the landlord may have had valid reasons for the delay, the resident was not informed and the landlord’s overall communication was poor.
  7. Due to the delays to repairing the leak, additional works had to be carried out to replace the kitchen lino and the concrete under the sink. In her complaint escalation, the resident also advised that when the contractor attended to complete the repairs, they caused damage to the worktop, kitchen units and washing machine. In its stage two response, the landlord stated that the outstanding repairs to replace the kitchen worktop and kitchen unit doors would be completed on 9 March 2022. As a result of the additional required works, further stress and inconvenience was caused to the resident due to requiring more appointments and there were several further missed and failed appointments.
  8. In her complaint to this service, the resident raised that she thought the pipes needed to be replaced. In its stage two response, the landlord stated that although the pipes were old, they were not damaged or in need of replacement. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified contractors, so as the landlord’s contractor had assessed the pipes and determined they were not in need of replacement, it was reasonable decision.
  9. In the landlord’s final response, it offered compensation of £150 for distress and inconvenience, £125 for the delay in completing the repairs and £25 for the resident’s time and trouble. The contractor also offered a £25 gift card to apologise for the damage caused to the washing machine, but stated it was unable to replace it as it was still functioning. In line with this service’s remedy guidance, awards of £250-£700 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to act in accordance with its repairs policy over a considerable period of time and where the resident has had to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes. The landlord failed to repair the leak in line with its repair timeframes, which caused additional damage, and it had poor communication with the resident regarding the repairs and delays. However, the landlord acknowledged the poor workmanship, apologised for the service she had received and took steps to ensure the required work and additional repairs were completed. It also demonstrated that it had learned from the outcome of the complaint, as it stated it had reinforced its service standards with its contractor. As the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered compensation in line with this service’s remedy guidance, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the has been a reasonable offer of redress.
  10. The landlord has also offered an additional £75 compensation in recognition of its delayed complaint responses. Although the landlord exceeded its complaint response times at both stages, it did advise the resident that the responses would be delayed and acknowledged its failings. The compensation level was therefore a reasonable amount.
  11. In the resident’s complaint to this service, she said she wanted a higher level of compensation as she had paid to replace the flooring herself. She advised this was because she did not want the contractors to cause further damage. However, there is no evidence to suggest the resident advised the landlord of her concerns. Therefore, the landlord would not be expected to offer compensation for the replacement of the flooring as it was not made aware of the issue, and was unable to address the issue or offer an alternative, such as a different contractor.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s report of the leak and the subsequent repair issues.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not been accepted already, the landlord should reiterate its offer of compensation outlined in its stage two response.
  2. The landlord should write to this service and confirm that all the repairs have been completed.