Hyde Housing Association Limited (202203223)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203223

Hyde Housing Association Limited

22 November 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s window.
2. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation which caused damage to her property in 2017/18.
3. The resident’s report that her light fitting remains damaged following previous rodent activity.
4. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation which caused damage to her property in 2017/18 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member [landlord] as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
As part of her complaint to the landlord and this Service, the resident raised concerns regarding the landlord’s failure to investigate her reports of pests and associated damage to the property in 2017/18. Whilst the resident has provided evidence to suggest that a complaint was raised at the time, there is no evidence to suggest that the issues were raised again until January 2022. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in January 2022. As such, the Ombudsman will not consider the landlord’s handling of the reported pest issues raised in 2017/18 in our investigation.

Background

The resident is a shared-ownership leaseholder of the property. The property is a flat within a block of similar properties. The landlord is not the freeholder of the building and the freeholder employs a managing agent to act on its behalf regarding the building.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident initially reported that her window needed to be repaired in September 2019 as there was a gap between the window ledge and the window. The resident has advised that an operative attended at the time and advised that scaffolding would be required. The resident advised that she had pursued her concerns four times between September 2019 and June 2021.
The resident raised a complaint in January 2022 regarding various issues, including the delay in repairing her window which remained outstanding since September 2019. She advised that she had contacted the landlord multiple times regarding the outstanding repair and was dissatisfied with the lack of updates and communication. She also advised that the window had deteriorated, the property was cold and that she had experienced increased energy costs due to the need to use electric heaters as a result of the gap in the window. In addition, she advised that the electrical wiring for her light fitting remained damaged following pest activity in 2017/18 and she was unable to pay more towards fixtures that were damaged by rodents present on the external building, which were the landlord’s responsibility to resolve. She also raised separate concerns related to her service charge, her request for information about the external walls of the property and issues related to the hot water at the property. She requested compensation for her increased energy bills for over two years due to the delay in completing the window repair and for the inconvenience caused.
In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had initially reported the window repair issues in September 2019 and apologised for the delay in arranging the works required. It acknowledged that the resident had contacted it multiple times regarding the issue and that its staff had not taken ownership over the issue or communicated. It explained that there was some delay due to confusion about who was responsible for the repair but that it had now arranged for the freeholder of the building’s contractors to complete the repairs. It committed to repairing the windows on 3 May 2022.
2. It explained that pest control within the property would be the resident’s responsibility as a shared owner and that the resident would need to arrange a private contractor to treat any pest infestations. It apologised if this had not been communicated at an earlier date and confirmed that it could provide access to the pest control operatives to the roof upon request.
3. It addressed the other matters raised by the resident and acknowledged that there was a delay in providing its complaint responses due to slow responses from its stakeholders. It offered the resident £350 compensation, comprised of £250 for the inconvenience and time and trouble caused, and £100 for the delay in arranging repairs and poor complaint handling.
The work to repair the window was not completed on 3 May 2022 as the required materials had not arrived until then. The landlord attempted to rearrange the appointment and the repair was carried out on 24 May 2022. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord in relation to the delay in completing the repair to her window. She was also dissatisfied that the landlord had informed her that pest control within the roof space would be her responsibility to address although the roof was not part of her own property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord responded to several issues through its internal complaint procedure. However, the resident has subsequently confirmed to this Service that she only considers the issues related to the window repair and pest control to be outstanding, as defined above. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the window repair and the subsequent complaint as this is the only outstanding issue within the Ombudsman’s remit to consider.

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

The resident’s lease agreement confirms that the resident is responsible for internal repairs to the property and would be responsible for the internal faces of the windows and the glass within the frames. The landlord would be responsible for arranging repairs to the structure of the building, including external windows and furniture, with the freeholder or managing agent of the building where the landlord is not responsible for completing the repairs itself. Although the freeholder may be responsible for carrying out repairs to the exterior and communal parts of the building, the landlord has a role to ensure that such repairs are completed on behalf of its leaseholders. The landlord should demonstrate that it is regularly communicating with the freeholder to ensure the repairs progress and provide the resident with any updates.
In this case, it is not disputed that the resident had initially raised concerns regarding the window in September 2019. The evidence suggests that the window was repaired by the freeholder’s contractor on 24 May 2022, approximately 32 months later. The landlord acknowledged that the delay was unreasonable and has explained that the delay was largely due to confusion regarding who was responsible for the repair and poor communication. It has also apologised to the resident and offered £350 compensation.
The Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had attempted to gain an understanding of who was responsible for the repair and progress the repair between September 2019 and January 2022, when the complaint was raised. The resident has advised that she was told scaffolding would be needed by a contractor in 2019, however, the landlord has not provided evidence to demonstrate that it had attempted to progress the repair at any other stage prior to the complaint being raised. Whilst it is understandable that there were likely to have been some delays during 2020 and 2021 due to the impact of Covid-19 which would have been outside of the landlord’s control, the landlord has not provided evidence to confirm or explain the reasons for the delays over the two and a half-year period prior to the complaint being raised, which is of concern.
Whilst there is no clear evidence to confirm whether the resident had pursued the repair with the landlord between September 2019 and January 2022, the landlord has acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident on multiple occasions, which suggests that she had been pursuing this to some extent. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided regular updates to the resident if there was likely to be any delay in completing the repair in order to manage her expectations. The landlord has not provided evidence to suggest that it did so which amounts to a failing. The landlord has acted appropriately by acknowledging the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the repair as a result of its poor communication which was reasonable in the circumstances.
Following the resident’s formal complaint in January 2022, the landlord acted appropriately to progress the repair by questioning who was responsible for the repair in line with the lease agreements for the property. Ultimately the landlord should have clear records of who is responsible for repairs in its properties to prevent any unnecessary delays, especially where other stakeholders are involved and the freeholder or managing agent of a building may be responsible. In view of this, the landlord should review the leasehold agreements for the property and establish clear records of who is responsible for each type of repair.
The landlord’s records show that it had established that it was responsible for the repair in February 2022 and there was delayed communication from its contractors despite its efforts to chase a date for the works to go ahead. In March 2022, the freeholder’s maintenance team agreed to take ownership of the resident’s window repair and another window repair in the building. Following this, the delay in arranging works were somewhat outside of the landlord’s control and the evidence shows that the landlord made reasonable efforts in line with its obligations to request a start date for the works from the freeholder in order to update the resident. It acted appropriately by escalating the matter with the freeholder when a date had not been provided and liaising with senior members of staff in order to progress the works.
The landlord acknowledged the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the repair as well as the delay in arranging the repair, within its complaint responses. The landlord’s offer of £350 compensation went some way to remedy the inconvenience caused and time and trouble spent by the resident as a result of its failings, however, the offer is not considered proportionate given the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the extensive delays in this case.
The landlord is to offer the resident an additional £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the significant delay in arranging the repairs to her window, bringing the total offer for this aspect of the complaint to £450. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure which states that this amount is considered proportionate where there has been a major impact on the resident, including persistent failure over a protracted time period. It is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience. The remedies guidance states that amounts in this range are considered proportionate where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration but where there may be no permanent impact on the resident.

The resident’s report that her light fitting remains damaged following previous rodent activity.

Whilst the Ombudsman is unable to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by pests in 2017/18 as detailed above, we are able to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord and its response to the issues raised in the complaint. As part of her complaint to the landlord in January 2022, the resident raised concern that the wiring to her light fitting remained damaged as a result of the historical pest issues in the property and that she was not willing to pay more towards fittings which had been damaged as a result of pests on the external building which were not her responsibility.
In line with the lease agreement, the resident is responsible for repairs within the property and it was reasonable for the landlord to advise as such. However, it failed to confirm its position regarding the damaged light fitting in its complaint response and simply confirmed that the resident would need to arrange her own pest control contractor if she was experiencing pests. This was likely to be frustrating for the resident who maintained her position that the landlord was liable for the damage to her electrical wiring, as her concern remained unaddressed by the landlord. It should be noted that it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine liability for damage caused to the resident’s property as a result of any action or inaction by a landlord, or to determine whether the landlord is responsible for repairing the electrical wiring. This is because as explained above, the original cause of the wiring issue (the rodent infestation) is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have fully addressed the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses to manage her expectations.
In addition, within its stage two complaint response, the landlord advised that the resident was responsible for pest control within her property and that she could contact it to arrange access to the roof. This advice is unclear and not considered appropriate as there is no evidence to suggest that the roof space formed part of the resident’s property in line with the lease agreement or that she was responsible for pest control within the external roof space. If the pest infestation was reported as ongoing within the external roof, the landlord would be expected to arrange an inspection of the roof itself, or ask the freeholder to arrange this if appropriate, to ensure that any defects or access points in the roof space were rectified as the roof is considered a communal area and the resident is not responsible for pest infestations in communal areas. She is only responsible for infestations within her own property.
As such, there has been service failure by the landlord in that it has not fully addressed this aspect of the resident’s complaint and it has provided unclear information. The landlord should offer the resident £100 compensation in view of the inconvenience caused to the resident by this failing. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above which states that amounts in this range are proportionate in instances of service failure where there was an impact on the resident, but did not affect the outcome of the complaint. The landlord should also contact the resident to confirm its position regarding the damage to the light fitting within four weeks.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaints process. Complaints may be raised informally in the first instance and a response should be provided within five working days. The landlord’s policy confirms that it may decline to investigate a complaint about a specific incident that occurred over six months prior to the complaint being raised. However, discretion should be used, particularly if there is evidence of a long-standing or continuing problem. At stage of its complaints process, the landlord should provide its complaint response within ten working days. if a resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. At stage two, the landlord should provide its response within 20 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 response timeframe which should not exceed a further ten working days.
The evidence shows that the resident initially raised a complaint on 6 January 2022, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 28 April 2022 which was significantly outside of the landlord’s timescale by 70 working days. Whilst the landlord made efforts to update the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timeframe on five occasions during this period which went some way to manage her expectations, the overall delay was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who needed to spend time and trouble pursuing a response. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for the delay and offering compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
The resident asked the landlord to review the compensation it had offered at stage one on 2 May 2022. The landlord issued its response on 13 May 2022, which was within a reasonable timeframe. However, the landlord failed to confirm its position regarding the resident’s specific requests for compensation due to her increased energy costs during the period that the window repair had remained outstanding. The landlord would be expected to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint and it would have been appropriate for it to have addressed this concern given the extensive delays in arranging the repair in this case. Whilst the resident has not provided evidence to show that her energy bills had increased as a direct result of the required window repair, there is nothing to suggest that the landlord had asked for this evidence or that the resident was given the opportunity to provide so that it could consider her request for compensation.
In addition, it should be noted that the landlord has not provided records of the repair issue or communication logs with the resident prior to the complaint being raised in January 2022. The landlord initially advised the resident on 2 February 2022 that it would only investigate the previous six months prior to the complaint being made in line with its complaints policy. It is generally reasonable for landlord to only consider events which had occurred during the previous six months prior to a complaint being raised. However, given that the landlord was aware that the issue was long-standing, it would have been appropriate for it to have used its discretion to investigate its historical handling of the repair issue. This would have been appropriate in order to explain the reasons for the lengthy delays to the resident and take points of learning from the complaint to avoid similar situations in the future. Its failure to consider the history of the repair was likely to have caused inconvenience and distress to the resident, whose concerns were not fully addressed.
In view of the identified failings, the landlord’s combined offer of £100 for the delay in arranging the repair to the resident’s window and its poor complaint handling is not considered proportionate. The landlord is to offer the resident £100 specifically in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling and its failure to fully identify points of learning from the complaint. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as detailed above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
1. Its handling of repairs to the resident’s window.
2. The resident’s report that her light fitting remains damaged following previous rodent activity.
3. The associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to complete the following actions within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £650 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £450 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of the significant delay in completing the repairs to the window. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £350 compensation.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to address the resident’s concerns related to her light fitting which remained damaged as a result of historic issues with pests on the external roof of the building.
  3. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
2. The landlord is to contact the resident and confirm its position regarding her concern that her light fitting and wiring remained damaged following historical pest activity. It should also confirm its obligations regarding pest activity in the communal areas and roof of the building.

Within eight weeks:

The landlord is to complete a review of the case to identify failings, establish points of learning from the complaint and highlight where improvements could be made. A copy of the review should be sent to both the resident and the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to review its repair responsibilities for the property to ensure that it has a clear understanding of which party is responsible for different repairs to avoid unreasonable delays in the future. It should provide a clear breakdown for the types of repairs that it, the resident, and the freeholder are responsible for to the resident and this Service within eight weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider compensating the resident for her reported additional energy usage between September 2019 – May 2022 on the provision of evidence of her increased costs. The resident should supply the landlord with her energy statements for the period when the repairs were ongoing and for the same period following the repair of the window for comparison of the energy usage within the property. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she may wish to raise a separate complaint regarding this issue.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its agreements in place with the freeholder and its managing agent. It should seek to ensure that it has clear service-level agreements in place with clarity around roles and responsibilities in buildings where it is not the freeholder.
It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that discretion is used effectively where there are longstanding issues that gave rise to a complaint.