Hyde Housing Association Limited (202203653)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203653

Hyde Housing Association Limited

10 August 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of concerns about the quality of the estate management services provided by the landlord;
    2. The landlord’s handling of reports of staff conduct;
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling, and;
    4. The landlord’s decision not to investigate the resolutions offered in respect of previous complaints.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant in a property situated in a larger block. In this report, the block and surrounding areas are referred to as “the estate”. The estate houses approximately 100 dwellings and all residents pay a fixed service charge in addition to their rent.
  2. The resident had concerns that members of staff were not performing their duties. She felt that a number of jobs around the estate were either not being done or were not being performed to an adequate standard. The resident complained over the phone on 10 May 2021 and followed this with a written complaint on 23 August 2021. The resident complained that:
    1. The quality of the service in question had deteriorated since April 2021;
    2. That she felt that some members of staff were not performing their duties;
    3. That members of staff were not being effectively managed or monitored;
    4. That resolutions the landlord had offered in response to previous complaints were not being fulfilled.
  3. The resident sent a chaser to the landlord on 26 September 2021. To resolve the complaint, she wanted the performance of the staff members in question to be formally investigated, and the quality of estate management services improved. She also asked for compensation for what she felt was a failing to meet service standards.
  4. The landlord responded on 23 November 2021, setting out its view that there were no performance issues and no outstanding commitments from previous complaints that the landlord had failed to implement. It also explained that it would not look into old complaints, in line with its policy. The landlord acknowledged that there were some minor service failures identified during its inspections. It apologised for delays in its complaint handling and offered £200 compensation for this.
  5. The resident has provided a copy of her stage two escalation, dated 6 December 2021. The resident said:
    1. There had been further issues with the landlord’s complaint handling;
    2. They disagreed with the landlord’s assessment of the performance of the landlord’s estate management team on the estate;
    3. It was unreasonable not to look at the resolutions offered in previous complaints, because it was relevant to this complaint;
    4. That specific ground maintenance duties were not being fulfilled; the resident included a detailed assessment of the specific duties in question.
  6. On 17 March 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response. It said that it had investigated the condition of the estate and found it to be “fair and reasonable”. It had also reviewed the performance of its staff members and was satisfied that that they were performing their duties as expected. It increased its offer of compensation in respect of complaint handling failures to £275, and confirmed that it would not look into old complaints.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of concerns about the quality of the estate management services provided by the landlord

  1. The occupancy agreement sets out which areas of the estate are the responsibility of the landlord. This includes, but is not limited to, maintenance of communal grounds, the exterior of the building and the maintenance of stairs and pathways. There is also a schedule of services which details more specific activities, such as communal window cleaning and gardening in communal areas. There is no measurable standard set out in these documents.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord inspected the estate on a number of occasions. On 16 April 2021, the landlord inspected the estate with the resident in attendance. The landlord acknowledged that some maintenance tasks had been found to be outstanding on inspection, however the overall quality of the maintenance work completed was fair and reasonable. There was no indication that any tasks had remained outstanding for an unreasonable period of time. The landlord inspected the estate and produced inspection reports in April 2021, June 2021, August 2021, October 2021 and on 1 December 2021. The reports showed that overall, most tasks were being performed adequately but that some areas required improvement.
  3. Each report showed an improvement in the condition of the estate from the previous inspection, and the reports as a whole confirmed the landlord’s assessment that the condition of the estate was fair and reasonable, although there was room for improvement in some areas. Overall, the evidence available demonstrates that maintenance, cleaning and gardening activities were being performed in line with the occupancy agreement.
  4. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident takes pride in where she lives and although the condition of the estate was fair and reasonable, there was room for improvement noted. The evidence shows that although it was satisfied with the condition of the estate, the landlord did take reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns. The landlord and resident were in close communication about the standard of works and the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns by inspecting the estate, as was reasonable.
  5. Nevertheless, in December 2021 and again in February 2022, the landlord brought in an external contractor to assist the in-house estate management team. It explained that this was to help with a number of seasonal replanting jobs and otherwise support the estate management team in their delivery of regular services. One of the responsibilities was the clearing of leaves, which had been highlighted as an area of improvement both by the resident and the inspection report. This demonstrates that the landlord took the concerns of the resident seriously and took steps to improve the standard of service being delivered. The resolution offered was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. As a result, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of concerns about the quality of the estate management services provided.

The landlord’s handling of reports of staff conduct

  1. Between April 2020 and April 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the landlord made changes to its estate management plans and brought in an external contractor for that period. The resident and the landlord both agreed that the standard of service provided during this period was good. When the prior arrangements resumed in April 2021, the resident experienced a drop in service quality and a deterioration in the condition of the estate.
  2. The resident was concerned that members of the estate management team responsible for her estate were not performing all of their duties to an adequate standard. Some of the responsibilities the resident felt were not being completed at all. The resident felt that the performance of these staff members was therefore not being monitored. The resident felt that in response to her complaint on 23 August 2021, the performance of these staff members had not been investigated adequately.
  3. The landlord has shown that it regularly inspected the condition of the estate and was generally aware of which jobs were and were not being completed effectively. It took steps to support the estate management team through external contractors where necessary and investigated the specific elements of the resident’s complaint. One such element was the presence of dust and debris in an internal corridor. The landlord investigated, and found that during the period in question, the area had been subject to fire safety improvement works that had left some debris as a result. The landlord explained that the staff member in question had been told that the cleaning of that area was the responsibility of the fire safety contractor and that if that had not been completed, they were sorry. The landlord then put it right by ensuring the area was cleaned.
  4. In conclusion, the landlord’s inspection reports evidenced that the staff members were performing their duties. It also highlighted where there was room for improvement and the landlord subsequently took steps to do this, although the overall condition of the estate was already to an acceptable standard. As a result, there was no maladministration of the landlord’s handling of reports about staff conduct.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord must respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This time is extended to 20 working days for stage two responses.
  2. The resident complained that there had been a number of delays in receiving responses. There was also confusion about the date of the original complaint caused by the merging of a previous complaint with a more recent one.
  3. The resident originally complained to the landlord on 10 May 2021, although both parties later agreed that the date would be recognised as 23 August 2021, when the resident sent the complaint in writing. The resident was obliged to chase the landlord on 26 September 2021. It provided its stage one response on 23 November 2021.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 December 2021, The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 9 December 2021 and said it would respond by 11 February 2022. On 27 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that it needed more time to respond to the complaint. On 17 March 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response.
  5. It is clear that both stages of the response were significantly delayed, increasing the time and trouble the resident went to pursuing the complaint, and causing frustration. The landlord explained that it needed extra time, but did this later than the Code says it must. The landlord therefore was correct to offer compensation to ‘put right’ the negative impact caused by the delays at stage one. The landlord also was correct to increase this offer after further delays were experienced at stage two. The compensation totalled £275 by the conclusion of the complaints process.
  6. The evidence shows that during its stage one response, the landlord was taking steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and may not have been in a position to respond prior to the date it did. The landlord should nevertheless have demonstrated better communication with the resident during this period.
  7. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where a service failure occurs over a short duration, causing impact such as time and trouble, it would be right to offer between £50-£100 compensation. For longer periods, where there was no permanent impact, the landlord is advised to consider a minimum of £100 compensation and a maximum of £600 compensation. Given the delays experienced, the reasons for the delay and the landlord’s response to these delays in during the complaints procedure, the total of £275 provided reasonable redress in this instance.

The landlord’s decision not to investigate the resolutions offered in previous complaints

  1. The resident felt that the landlord had not complied with the resolutions it had offered in response to two previous complaints about similar issues in 2019 and 2021 (namely that quarterly meetings to review standards had not been held, and that no substantial improvements had been made since April 2021). The landlord responded by saying it did not consider there to be any ‘live ongoing commitments’, and that it would not investigate previous complaints, in line with its complaints policy.
  2. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord has interpreted its complaints policy in an unreasonable way in this instance. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles explain that the landlord should seek to be fair, learn from outcomes and to put things right. If any member landlord implements resolutions to put things right following a complaint, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to stand by these resolutions or, to provide an explanation to the resident why it should not.
  3. As a result, there was a service failure in the landlord’s decision not to address the resident’s concerns that actions previously promised had not been provided: This was not a request to investigate issues that had already been considered via the complaint process. However, as noted above, the evidence available indicates that maintenance, cleaning and gardening activities were being performed adequately. As such, and while frustrating for the resident, this failing did not impact the outcome of the complaint. In light of this , the redress the landlord offered in respect of its complaints handling failures was overall sufficient to put things right. As a result, no further compensation is necessary in this instance. However, the Ombudsman will make recommendations in respect of these elements of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the quality of the estate management services provided.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of staff conduct.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling failures.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s decision not to investigate elements of previously concluded complaints.

Recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of this decision, to pay to the resident the £275 compensation it has offered in respect of its complaint handling failures, if it has not already done so.
  2. To ensure that in future complaints, it is able to demonstrate compliance with previous resolutions offered to the resident, or to investigate and provide a response which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and Dispute Resolution Principles.