Hyde Housing Association Limited (202127631)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127631

Hyde Southbank Homes Limited

22 May 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
   1. A downpipe.
   2. The communal doors to the bin store.
   3. A car park light.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background

3. The resident has held a secure shorthold tenancy with the landlord since 2018 at the property, a one-bedroom ground floor flat in a purpose-built block.
4. The resident raised concerns about the communal bin store doors next to her flat, and a broken drainpipe from a flat above in July 2021. A formal complaint was logged in August 2021 that stated that homeless people were gaining access to the bin stores as the gates were broken and had started a fire. The complaint also said that the leaking pipe above had not been fixed, although the resident had been informed that two repairs had been raised. In October 2021, the resident also advised the landlord that some of the communal car park lights were not working.
5. The landlord’s complaint response in December 2021 apologised for the delays in the repairs and offered £80 for time and trouble and the delay in the response. It said the bin store doors were on order but would take several months and it had been unable to gain access to repair the leaking pipe above the resident’s flat.
6. The complaint was escalated in March 2022 as the three repairs remained unresolved. During this time, the resident reported that water from the pipe had turned to thick ice on the pavement below, a set of doors were replaced on another bin store on the close but not the one next to the resident’s flat and the car park lights were still broken posing a safety risk.
7. The landlord’s final response in July 2022 apologised for the delay and offered £200 compensation to include sums for poor communication and delay in the repairs. It said the correct bin store doors would be replaced in August 2022, the pipe repair was due to be completed that month, and that the car park light had been fixed. The resident has advised that the same pipe was leaking again in April 2023. She seeks further compensation to reflect the time taken to resolve the issues and the consequent stress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment

8. It is noted that the pipe was reported as leaking again more recently. This is not something that the Ombudsman has made a finding on in this investigation, as it came after the final response, and it is not known if it relates to the previous issue or is a new repair. It is fair that the landlord be given the opportunity to investigate the report of the new leak and take necessary action. If this remains a concern, the resident may raise a new complaint and escalate it to this Service as appropriate.
9. This is in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints ab out issues which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. Though the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions about the resident’s recent reports about the leaking downpipe, a recommendation has been included for it to look into this issue as a priority.

Downpipe

10. Section 4 (b) of the assured shorthold tenancy agreement for the property gives the landlord’s responsibility for repairs and says the landlord will make sure the structure and outside of the resident’s home is kept repaired, including drains, gutters and pipes outside.
11. The responsive repairs procedure effective August 2020 says at section 6.1 that  ‘Anytime repairs’ will be attended to within 20 working days, and this is any repair which is not an emergency repair. Appendix 1 lists repairs responsibilities and shows that in cases of ‘general needs’ housing, gutters and rainwater pipes are the landlord’s responsibility.
12. In this case, the informal complaint in July 2021 notes the leaking pipe being reported. The resident was advised that a repair was booked for August 2021, but the landlord log for November 2021 shows that the resident had advised that the pipe remained broken at that time.
13. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 10 December 2021 said that there had been some confusion about where the leak was coming from, and the landlord had been unable to gain access, but that it would be rescheduled as soon as possible. Ten days later the resident was advised that a contractor had attended and checked the ‘unvented system’ and reported back that someone should now check the guttering and downpipe. However, the resident reported in February 2022 the broken pipe was still gushing water. The complaint was escalated and there was some discussion noted by the landlord in March 2022 that a contractor found the pipe that connected to the downpipe was leaking, which was a plumbing issue, so a further appointment had been scheduled for 28 February 2022.
14. However, in April 2022, the landlord noted that although red tape had been put around the pipe, it had not been replaced and the resident had said that during winter, the water leaked and had turned into ice, and thus represented a health and safety hazard. In May 2022 the landlord updated the resident that it was still waiting for the contractor to revert about the pipe and the resident sent a photograph of the leak and stated that it was dangerous for pedestrians and causing structural damage the longer it was left. An inspector came on 18 May 2022 but two weeks later the resident advised the leak had got worse.
15. The landlord’s final response on 6 July 2022 said that a job had been raised to fix the leaking pipe. It did not say whether the pipe had proved to be a complex repair or why it had taken so long to resolve, other than on one visit a van had been parked beneath the pipe so a tower could not be erected. The repair was booked for 15 July 2022, but the resident provided photographs in August 2022 which she said showed the pipe was still leaking. She said that in the winter residents had to walk into the street by a busy junction to avoid the thick ice on the ground and moss was now growing on the wall.
16. Although the resident advised this Service in November 2022 that the pipe was fixed, she later said that the pipe had started leaking again in April 2023. As above, the Ombudsman has no evidence as to the cause of the recent leak or the landlord’s response, so it is not included in this investigation.
17. While the pipe was external to her property, the resident has described how the leak had affected the lives of local residents particularly through the winter. The resident had taken the initiative and raised an issue on behalf of herself and others and was given reassurance on several occasions between the informal complaint of July 2021 and the repair in November 2022. The resident had been given named contacts in relation to the repair, but she has reported difficulties with communication and ultimately it took 16 months before the original leak was resolved.
18. The landlord’s repairs policy says that non-emergency repairs will be attended to within 20 working days. Although landlord notes indicate that two repairs were booked in August 2021, one of which was presumably the leaking pipe, it is apparent that this was not resolved until far later.  This was an unreasonable period of time.
19. The landlord did acknowledge that the repairs should have been done far earlier and that communication around them was poor, but it did not provide a reasonable explanation for why a leak in an external pipe would take such an extended time to fix. The landlord had a responsibility to fix external pipes and, in this instance, it made assurances which it did not keep.
20. The compensation offered by the landlord was not broken down by the individual repairs but a total of £50 was awarded in the final response for delay in completing repairs. This seems low for the extended period involved and given it related to three issues. The Ombudsman’s remedy guidance allows for payments of compensation of £50 to £250 in instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident. In this case, the service standards were not met, and the impact would reasonably be inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, and loss of confidence as well as a delay in the matter being resolved. 
21. Accordingly, a sum of £100 compensation for the delay in the pipe being repaired would be fair in all the circumstances. The impact was not felt inside the resident’s own property but was over an extended period of time and as she pointed out, could have had a health and safety impact when ice formed on the pavement below, the possibility of which would cause distress.

Bin store doors

22. Section 4 (b) of the assured shorthold tenancy gives the landlord’s responsibility for repairs and says the landlord will make sure the structure and outside of the resident’s home are kept repaired, including outside doors and the outside of garages and stores. 4 (b) 4 says the landlord will keep shared entrances, halls stairways and other shared areas repaired.
23. The responsive repairs procedure says at section 6.1 says ‘Anytime repairs’ will be attended to within 20 working days. Appendix 1 of the procedure lists repair responsibilities  and says that  in cases of ‘general needs’ housing,  external doors are the responsibility of the landlord.
24. In this instance, the broken bin store door was reported by the resident via her informal complaint in July 2021. Again, the resident was advised repair jobs were booked for August 2021 and the resident said she was made aware that the delay up to then was caused by the budget approval required, and she was not sure why the landlord had not advised of this before.
25. When the matter became a formal complaint in August 2021, the resident explained that homeless people were gaining access to the bin store and had even started  a fire, whereby the fire brigade had said that the doors were not adequate. The resident said that she had reported this for many months, and she was told that a report in February 2021 had noted that the gates were inspected and were non repairable and the job would be escalated. There is no evidence of this report in the landlord’s submission. At this time, the resident asked that the landlord remove a mattress which was in the bin house as she was concerned it would be set alight and the bin store is situated next to the resident’s flat.
26. The resident also said that she had received a call from a contractor two weeks before asking for the location of the bin store. There is no evidence of progress relating to the repair until the resident chased the matter in October and November 2021, with the stage one response in December 2021 subsequently apologising for the delays in the repair. The landlord explained that the doors had now been ordered but that there was a lead time of 3-4 months in the manufacturing process, and there was no way to speed this up. Again, assurances were given and contact details for a named officer who would monitor the repair.
27. The resident was advised that the bin store doors would be replaced at the end of March 2022, but it appears from the landlord’s letter to the resident in April 2022 that a different set of doors were replaced on the estate, not the ones adjacent to her flat. A further quote was obtained for two more bin store doors in April 2022 and following the resident escalating the complaint, the doors were replaced in August 2022, 13 months after the informal complaint.
28. The resident has told this Service that drugs were being taken in the bin store and people had been urinating and sleeping in there. The landlord’s final response in July 2022 acknowledged that the delay had been unacceptable, and that the second set of doors had not been changed due to human error.
29. The resident would reasonably have experienced a high level of anxiety knowing that there may be unknown individuals in the bin store which she would have to access frequently. That a fire had occurred would be of specific concern, particularly for the resident living next door to the bin store. She had reported the matter, chased it on several occasions, and had the disappointment of finding a different set of bin store doors had been changed and the lead time meant that there would be a further delay. Whilst the lead time for bespoke doors is not unreasonable, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have a system in place to identify the correct doors out of those on the estate to ensure this type of confusion did not occur. In addition, no mention has been made of whether consideration was given to any interim measures to secure the doors.
30. As above, it is not clear what element of the £50 compensation offered by the landlord for delay in the repairs was due to the bin store as opposed to the leaking pipe or the car park light, but the sum is low given the time scale and the seriousness of the matter. Using the Ombudsman remedy guidance, the sum of £150 compensation would better reflect an instance of service failure over a protracted period resulting in some impact on the resident. This recognises that the impact included distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, loss of confidence and delays in getting matters resolved.

Car park light

31. Section 4 (b) of the assured shorthold tenancy agreement says that the landlord will make sure they keep shared arears repaired. The responsive repairs procedure says that ‘Anytime repairs’ will be attended to within 20 working days. Appendix one is a list of repairs responsibilities and shows that garages and parking spaces are the responsibility of the landlord.
32. The broken car park lights were not included in the initial complaint; however, the landlord log shows that it was reported on 15 November 2021, almost a month before the first stage response was issued and was included in an internal landlord email about the complaint prior to the response to the resident. It was not included in the first stage response, but it was covered in the final response so is included in this investigation as the landlord has had the opportunity to respond to the issue. 
33. A second internal landlord email on 21 December 2021 quotes the resident saying that the light did not work in the car park and that it was ‘very scary as a woman to go in there to read the meter without adequate lighting especially in this area’. Despite this, there is no update on the repair before an email from the landlord to the resident on 10 February 2022 which said that a contractor found all emergency lights in the car park to be working. The landlord log then noted that the broken lights were non-emergency lights and suggested that a different contractor would therefore be responsible. The landlord’s log of a phone call to the resident on 5 May 2022 indicates that the car park light had been passed to the wrong contractor initially. An internal email on 5 May 2022 said that a loose wire in an emergency light was responsible but had been repaired. A few weeks later the resident sent photographs to the landlord to show where the light was still broken.
34. In its update letter dated 15 June 2022 the landlord said it needed more time to resolve the issue of the emergency car park light. An internal email shows that a contractor confirmed the repair was not for them after all and although it appeared fixed in May 2022, it required the correct contractor. It was suggested that the light was  a sensor which only comes on when movement was close by. Further emails indicate some question about the location of the light. The landlord then discussed a joint visit with contractors to check the lights as the resident had sent further photographs to show the light was still not working .
35. The final response dated 6 July 2022 noted that the resident  had confirmed that a new contractor attended on 1 July 2022 and the light was now working after previously being passed between contractors who had failed to resolve the issue. As above, the sum of £50 was offered in the final response in respect of the delay in completing all the repairs.
36. Using the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, the sum of £100 would be a more appropriate award to reflect the landlord’s failure to complete the repair to the car park light within its repair timescale of 20 working days. In this case, the issue was reported on 15 November 2021 and repaired on 1 July 2022, seven and a half months later. This sum better reflects the impact of the service failure to include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble and disappointment.
37. In common with the broken bin store doors, the lack of adequate light in the car park was a security concern which would reasonably cause distress to the resident. She was given reassurances that the matter was in hand and whilst it is understood that there was more than one contractor responsible for the various lighting systems in the car park, there was an excessive amount of confusion in identifying the light and the landlord should reasonably have been able to resolve this far more quickly than it did.

Complaint handling

38. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy statement effective January 2021 says at paragraph 9.6 that the landlord aims to respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint. If further time is needed the landlord will inform the resident and the response will be no later than a further 10 working days. Paragraph 9.10 says that at stage two of the formal process, the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days, with a further 10 days in exceptional circumstances.
39. Section 11.2 says that compensation may be offered where the landlord has failed to deliver a service to the advertised standard, in recognition of time and trouble taken by the customer to make their complaint or distress and inconvenience experienced or to reflect a loss because of the service failure.
40. In this case, the resident submitted her formal complaint on 28 August 2021 and the first stage response was issued on 10 December 2021, outside the time scales given by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the delay both in the initial acknowledgment, in asking for further time to respond and the ultimate response, which it said was due to short staffing and an increase in workload. It said that feedback had been given to managers to consider further training or changes to the landlord’s processes.
41. At this stage, the landlord offered £80 compensation which it said was to reflect time and trouble and the delay in the complaint response. No explanation was given as to what portion was in respect of the repairs, and what for the delay in the complaint process.
42. The resident escalated the complaint on 8 February 2022. The landlord called the resident to acknowledge this on 8 March 2022. An update was issued on14 April 2022, 5 May 2022 , 30 May 2022 and 15 June 2022. The final response itself was issued on 6 July 2022, five months after the request to escalate the complaint. The final response acknowledged that communication had been poor.
43. The final response offered compensation of £200 in total, including £50 for the delay in the repairs. There was £50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint, £50 for delays in the complaints process and £50 for poor communication. However, it did not distinguish if the £50 for poor communication was in respect of the complaint process or the repair process. For the sake of simplicity and given that awards have been made in respect of the delay in the various repairs as above, the remaining £150 has been considered as relating to the complaints process as a whole.
44. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged the poor response times, and that feedback would be given where appropriate. There were significant delays in the complaint process, however this service failure would not in itself have delayed the repairs, which have been compensated for elsewhere. The sum of £150 already awarded in the final response letter for service failures outside of the repairs appears a reasonable sum for this aspect of the complaint. Therefore the Ombudsman finds that reasonable redress has been offered prior to the complaint being referred to this Service. No further award will be made in respect of this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to:
    1. The leaking pipe.
    2. The bin store doors.
    3. The car park light.
46. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b), the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint handling failures satisfactorily.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

47. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord to evidence to this Service that it has paid the resident £500 in compensation, broken down as follows:
    1. £100  in respect of its handling of the leaking pipe repair.
    2. £150 in respect of its handling of the bin doors repair.
    3. £100 in respect of its handling of the car park light repair.
    4. £150 for the complaint handling failures, as detailed in its final response.
    5. Any amounts of compensation already paid to be deducted from the above compensation order.

Recommendation

48. It is recommended that the landlord liaise with the resident and follow its published repairs policy regarding the reports of a recent  leak which the resident says is from the same place as previously.