Hyde Housing Association Limited (202215245)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202215245
Hyde Housing Association Limited
30 September 2024
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 the resident’s requests for front door and external canopy replacement, window, and internal decoration works.
Background
- The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat in a house with a communal entrance and external canopy. It has no vulnerabilities recorded for him, but he and his representative have repeatedly told it that he has mental ill-health, which he receives support from medical professionals for, and that this has been worsened by repair delays at his property.
- In January 2021, the landlord recorded that the resident’s bedroom window needed brackets and replacement works, which it noted were due within 20 working days but did not complete at the time. It then recorded in March and April 2021 that same day repairs were needed to make safe and secure his front door, as well as that works were still required to reglaze his boarded up window, subsequently noting the front door repairs remained due within 20 working days. The landlord went on to record in June 2021 that the resident’s window needed to be inspected within 20 working days to source parts for this to be refitted, noting in July 2021 his loose front door also needed to be inspected during this timeframe after previously being kicked in by the police.
- The landlord also recorded in July 2021 that the resident’s representative explained his property’s outstanding repairs had worsened his mental ill-health. These included his bedroom window only being made safe and leaking water when it rained for around the past 9 months, as well as the damaged front door and frame not closing properly after being made safe. This was despite the landlord being chased for these works on many occasions, leading to the resident’s representative and medical professionals being concerned about the property’s suitability for him. It then noted that his window needed to be made safe to stop the leak on the same day, as well that his property’s repairs should be attended and assessed within 5 and 20 working days.
- The resident’s subsequent stage 1 complaint in August 2021 explained that the above repairs were still outstanding, as well as that works were required to his communal entrance’s external canopy’s glass. He complained that scaffolding and repairs for his bedroom window were only scheduled for that month, with his front door still not being repaired after its contractor raised 6 orders, and they had only just advised that more information was needed for this from the police. The resident added that there was a lack of communication from the landlord’s and contractor’s surveyors, and that his mental ill-health was continuing to be affected by his property’s outstanding works, which he asked to be compensated for due to his stress and inconvenience.
- The landlord then requested works within 20 working days in August 2021 for the resident’s bedroom window, and in September 2021 for the window, his front door, and holes in the bedroom wall, requesting the front door and frame be replaced urgently in October 2021. Its subsequent stage 1 complaint response in November 2021 said it replaced the door earlier that month, repaired the window in August 2021, and it agreed to take down scaffolding and fill in the holes in the wall by December 2021. The landlord apologised for delaying the door works and leaving the scaffolding up too long, but it explained it only agreed to fill in the holes the resident had made as a goodwill gesture, partially upholding his complaint and offering £150 compensation.
- The landlord accepted the resident’s front door needed replacing since April 2018, its contractor gave conflicting reports on this, and it did not update him or was proactive. It added it spoke to its property service team and contractors to highlight his complaint’s management so lessons were learnt to avoid future delays. The landlord then recorded inspecting and repairing the resident’s bedroom wall’s holes in November and December 2021, but he made a final stage complaint in February 2022. He complained its compensation did not reflect its 16 to 18-month repair delay, shattered external canopy glass was still a health and safety risk, and lack of care for him as a vulnerable person caused alarm, distress, anxiety, stress, and time chasing it he asked it £60 per day for.
- The landlord subsequently noted in May 2022 the resident’s bedroom wall still needed decorating, which it completed after 22 working days. He then repeated his latest complaint to it in May and June 2022, and it discussed replacing the external canopy’s glass with plastic in June and July 2022, as it previously repaired this in March 2022 before this was smashed again, which would take 8 weeks to manufacture. The landlord’s July 2022 final stage complaint response confirmed this and upheld that it contributed to repair delays that took too long, but it would recharge the resident for future purposeful damage. It therefore apologised and increased its compensation to £250 for this, its complaint handling delays, and his distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
- The resident then complained to the Ombudsman that he and his representative had spent many hours chasing the landlord to carry out urgent works at his property as a vulnerable person with mental ill-health for over a year and a half for the above repairs. He therefore sought a higher level of compensation from it for its lack of urgency, excuses, delays, and lack of responses to many calls and correspondence, and for his alarm and distress from its delays over 5 years, requesting £2,500 for this to resolve his complaint. The landlord subsequently told us it took time to decide how to replace the external canopy to ensure that the damage to this did not continue to happen.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident has described his mental ill-health as being worsened by the landlord’s handling of his requests for it to complete outstanding repairs at his property for over 5 years, which is very concerning. This investigation is nevertheless unable to consider the effect on his health or investigate matters arising before August 2020, in accordance with the Scheme.
- Paragraph 42c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising. Paragraph 42f of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure.
- Therefore, this investigation cannot consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair requests before August 2020 because these arose more than 12 months prior to his stage 1 complaint to it in August 2021, contrary to paragraph 42c of the Scheme above. The effect on his mental ill-health of its handling of his repair requests also cannot be considered by this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman does not have the authority or expertise to make such a determination of liability for damages to health in the way that a court or insurer might. Therefore, it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek this through the courts or other tribunal or procedure under paragraph 42f of the Scheme above.
Front door, external canopy, window, and internal decoration
- The resident’s tenancy obliges the landlord to keep his property’s structure and exterior repaired, including windows, doors and frames, plasterwork, and shared entrances. Its responsive repairs procedure requires it to make safe emergency repairs affecting immediate health, safety, security, or structure within 24 hours, including insecure doors and windows, responding to follow on and other non-emergency anytime repairs within 20 working days, with major or complex works taking longer. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (the spotlight report) recommends landlords recognise and record residents’ vulnerabilities, and adequately capture easily accessible key property data using strategies, training, standards, and systems.
- It is of concern that, while the landlord first recorded that the resident’s bedroom window needed brackets and to be replaced within its responsive repairs procedure’s 20-working-day timescale on 29 January 2021, it did not put up scaffolding and repair the window until 17 August 2021. It therefore took 138 working days to do so, which was an inappropriately excessive and unexplained 118-working-day delay, contrary to the procedure. This is particularly because the landlord previously noted on 7 April 2021 that works were still required to reglaze the boarded up window within the above timescale. It also recorded on 18 June 2021 that the window had fallen out and broken so needed inspecting to source parts to refit this in the same timescale.
- Moreover, the resident’s representative confirmed to the landlord on 7 July 2021 that his bedroom window had only been made safe and had leaked water when it rained for around the past 9 months. It therefore repeated its previous request that the window be attended within its responsive repairs procedure’s 20-working-day timescale on 9 July 2021, before asking for the leak from this to be made safe on the same day as an emergency repair under the procedure on 29 July 2021. However, the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 5 August 2021 reiterated that his window repair was still outstanding, and so this was only completed after the landlord’s further request for this to be done on 12 August 2021, which took a very unsuitable 8 requests for works to be completed.
- With regard to the resident’s front door, the landlord initially twice recorded that this was unsafe and insecure and needed same day emergency repairs under its responsive repairs procedure on 29 March and 7 April 2021. It nevertheless then noted that he told it that the door was still unsafe and insecure on 15 April 2021, which it instead indicated was now an anytime repair due within 20 working days under the procedure. This unexplained change in the status of the resident’s front door repair is concerning, especially as no works were recorded for this at the time, and because the landlord again noted on 7 July 2021 that the door still needed to be inspected. This was due to the loose door not connecting properly to the frame after being broken by police in October 2020.
- The resident’s representative also confirmed to the landlord on 7 July 2021 that his damaged front door and frame did not close properly and had only ever been made safe by it, which it raised another 20-working-day anytime repair for on 8 July 2021 for this to be assessed and overhauled. It subsequently asked for this to be attended within 5 working days on 9 July 2021, but he confirmed that the door repair was still outstanding on 12 August 2021, which it later asked to be urgently replaced on 20 October 2021 before it did so on 4 November 2021. The landlord therefore took 153 working days to replace the door after first recording this as unsafe and insecure in March 2021, which was an extremely inappropriate 133 working days later than its above timescale.
- Moreover, it was particularly unsuitable that the landlord only replaced the resident’s front door 13 months after it acknowledged police broke this in October 2020 by doing so in November 2021. While it did make the door safe by July 2021, it is unclear when it did so because its records did not specify this, contrary to both its responsive repairs procedure’s 24-hour emergency repair timescale for insecure doors, and the spotlight report’s recommendation to capture such key data. The procedure permitted major or complex works to take longer than 20 working days, and it would have been understandable if the landlord had to do so to manufacture a replacement door, but it also did not record any data or update the resident on this, which was inappropriate.
- In relation to the resident’s communal entrance’s external canopy, he told the landlord on 5 August 2021 there were outstanding repairs to the canopy’s glass. However, there is no evidence that it took action for or responded to him about this at that time, which was unsuitable and contrary to its responsive repairs procedure’s 20-working-day repair timescale. The resident’s representative’s final stage complaint on his behalf instead reported to the landlord on 21 February 2022 that the canopy’s glass was still shattered and a health and safety risk to him from it falling, which had not yet been addressed. It therefore arranged for its contractor to repair the glass on 1 March 2022, and so it did so 144 working days after he initially reported this in August 2021.
- This meant the landlord was responsible for another inappropriately excessive unexplained delay of 124 working days after its responsive repairs procedure’s above timescale for the external canopy. It is also of concern that, contrary to the spotlight report’s recommendations, it did not provide any key data that it had captured about arranging the canopy repair other than the completion date reported for this by its contractor above, which was unsuitable. It is additionally concerning that the vulnerable resident’s building’s communal entrance was described as having a health and safety risk from shattered glass falling, which might have affected him whenever he entered or exited his property, arising from a long-standing repair that could have been prevented with timely works.
- The resident’s representative subsequently told the landlord on 19 May and 16 June 2022 that the external canopy’s glass had been shattered again, with further health and safety concerns from the glass hanging above his communal entrance. It therefore agreed on 16 June 2022 to seek an urgent attendance for this, and it discussed replacing the canopy’s glass with plastic, which would take 8 weeks to manufacture, on 22 and 29 June 2022. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 8 July 2022 then confirmed that it would do so, which it subsequently explained was completed after it took time to decide how to ensure the damage to this did not continue. It is nevertheless of concern that it did not provide any completion date or records for this.
- Moreover, while it was understandable that it could take longer than the landlord’s responsive repairs procedure’s 20-working-day timescale for it to decide to replace the external canopy’s glass with plastic and manufacture this, it took 34 working days from May to July 2022 to confirm it would do so. It therefore could have taken it up to another 40 working days or 8 weeks after this to manufacture the replacement plastic canopy before this was even installed, which might not have been done immediately after the canopy was manufactured. The landlord was therefore responsible for a further unreasonably excessive unexplained canopy works delay, and it is concerning and contrary to the spotlight report that it did not record ever making this safe.
- It is additionally of concern that, despite reports of health and safety concerns about falling external canopy glass to the landlord in February, May and June 2022, there is no evidence it considered whether this was an emergency 24-hour repair. This is because its responsive repairs procedure states such works include making safe immediate health and safety issues such as insecure windows, which the resident and his representative described the canopy glass as being. This is especially due to his vulnerability, which might have put him at more risk form this. It was therefore particularly inappropriate the landlord did not recognise and record this in line with the spotlight report and his July and August 2021 reports of such outstanding repairs worsening his mental ill-health.
- With regard to the resident’s internal decorations, the landlord raised works on 23 September 2021 to fill in and redecorate his bedroom wall’s holes in its responsive repairs procedure’s 20-working-day timescale. However, its stage 1 complaint response subsequently told him after that timescale on 16 November 2021 it would fill in the holes by 14 December 2021, which was 58 working days after it originally agreed to, contrary to the procedure. While the landlord explained it arranged for its contractor to repair the holes as a goodwill gesture without recharging the resident, after he made and would normally be responsible for these, it was unsuitable for it to take this long. This is because it already agreed to take responsibility to complete works in the above timescale.
- It was therefore reasonable the landlord attended sooner than it previously suggested to inspect the resident’s bedroom wall on 17 November 2021, when it found the holes needed to be filled and made good. It also then completed works to repair the holes on 3 December 2021, but this was still 51 working days after it first raised works in September 2021, so it continued to exceed its responsive repairs procedure’s 20-working-day repair timescale by 31 working days, which was inappropriate. Moreover, while the landlord raised works in September 2021 to redecorate the resident’s bedroom wall within the procedure’s timescale, it did not do so until 174 working days later on 6 June 2022, which was an unsuitably excessive unexplained 154-working-day delay.
- The landlord additionally took 152 working days from originally raising works to redecorate the resident’s bedroom wall in September 2021 to raise these again on 3 May 2022, which it once more scheduled within its responsive repairs procedure’s 20-working-day timescale on 5 May 2022. It nevertheless subsequently rearranged these making good and painting works outside that timescale to June 2022, and so it also further delayed the works after its initial delay, which it unreasonably failed to explain to him. Moreover, it is concerning the resident’s August 2021 stage 1 complaint was only responded to by the landlord after 72 working days in November 2021, which also took 94 working days to respond to his final stage complaint from February to July 2022.
- The landlord was therefore additionally responsible for more inappropriately excessive delays in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaints. This is because its complaints policy obliges it to respond to stage 1 and final stage complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively, so its responses to him were 62 and 74 working days later than the policy’s timescales at stage 1 and at the final stage of its complaints procedure, respectively. This was unsuitable and so it was reasonable that the landlord apologised to the resident for this and its repair delays and his distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble, as well as that it sought to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right by offering him compensation.
- The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for the above reasons, which was proportionate under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to recognise its 136-working-day total complaint handling delay’s adverse effect on him, as our guidance recommends awards from £100 for this. However, as described by him and his representative, its other failures had a significant emotional impact on him as a vulnerable person with mental ill-health, which its offer was not in proportion to. These included total delays of 560 working days in repairing the resident’s bedroom window, front door and frame, external canopy, bedroom wall’s holes, and bedroom wall decorations, as well as the lack of records of these works, his vulnerability, and of communication with him.
- Moreover, the above total repair delay by the landlord in the resident’s case does not include the length of time it kept scaffolding up at his property, or took to replace his external canopy’s glass with plastic, as no start or completion dates or records were provided for these, which was inappropriate. It has therefore been ordered below to pay him £1,000 additional compensation in recognition of the further failings identified by this investigation, as well as to write to apologise to him for these, and it is recommended below to re-offer him the £250 it previously awarded. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’ remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards of up to £1,000 for failures by the landlord that had a significant emotional impact on the resident.
- With regard to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes, the landlord explained it spoke to its property service team and contractors to highlight the resident’s complaint’s management so lessons were learnt to avoid future delays. It is also noted that it completed a self-assessment of its compliance against the spotlight report’s recommendations after the events of his case. It is nevertheless of concern that the landlord did not identify exactly why its delays and lack of records and communication in handling the resident’s requests for works occurred, or outline exactly how it proposed to prevent these from occurring again in the future. It has therefore been ordered below to carry out a senior management review to do so.
- In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s complaint handling – similar to those identified in case 202219866. The Ombudsman has not, however, made any further orders for it to improve this. This is because a wider order was made as part of case 202219866, which the landlord has now complied with. We expect it to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with us following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for front door and external canopy replacement, window, and internal decoration works.
Orders and recommendation
Orders
- The landlord is ordered to:
- Pay the resident £1,000 additional compensation within 4 weeks in recognition of the further failings by it identified by this investigation.
- Write to the resident within 4 weeks to apologise to him for the further failings by it identified by this investigation, take responsibility for these, and acknowledge their impact on him.
- In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Scheme, carry out a senior management review of its handling of the resident’s requests for works within 8 weeks to identify exactly why its failings in handling his requests happened, and to outline exactly how it proposes to prevent these from occurring again in the future. It shall present the review to its senior leadership team and provide him and the Ombudsman with a copy of its review. This review should include:
- Its staff’s and contractors’ training needs on its responsive repairs procedure and on its self-assessment of its compliance against the spotlight report.
This is to ensure it responds to residents’ requests for works promptly and effectively, recognises and records their vulnerabilities, adequately captures easily accessible key data, and regularly communicates about these in every case.
- The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the below recommendation.
Recommendation
- It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £250 it previously offered him.