Hyde Housing Association Limited (202226256)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226256

Hyde Housing Association Limited

14 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of 6-monthly filter changes for a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit in the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2007. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. An appointed representative liaised with the landlord on the resident’s behalf and continues to represent him in pursuing it through this Service. For the purposes of this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all communications from the resident and the representative are referred to as coming from the resident.
  2. A PIV unit was installed in the resident’s property to deal with damp and mould (usually installed in homes with stubborn or long-term damp and mould) issues. It was agreed that the landlord would change the filters in the unit on a 6-monthly schedule.
  3. On 15 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to express his dissatisfaction that it had not been carrying out the 6-monthly filter changes it was responsible for. The landlord registered this as a complaint and issued its stage 1 response on18 January 2023.
  4. The landlord upheld the complaint and accepted that it had failed to carry out the filter changes when it should. It apologised for having let the resident down and for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered £350 compensation (£50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint; £50 for poor communication, time, and trouble; £150 for the delay in repairs; £100 for the inconvenience caused). It also arranged for a maintenance engineer to attend on 19 January 2023 to service the PIV system and filters.
  5. The landlord further said that it was procuring bids from new contractors and expected the process to be complete by Autumn 2023. It said that once the new maintenance contractors were engaged, it would place residents on a servicing schedule and write to them individually to update them then.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 25 January 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 January 2023. It said it had reviewed the decision made at stage 1 and believed it had responded to all the points and given a fair reply. There was no new information to consider, and it would not be changing the decision made at stage 1.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and in January 2023 escalated his complaint to this Service. He said it was a battle to get the landlord to change the filters every 6 months and had been since 2019. He wanted the landlord to provide a schedule of filter replacements now and adhere to it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman can only consider issues which have been raised with the landlord as a formal complaint and exhausted their complaints process (reflected at paragraph 42.a of the Scheme). This is so that the landlord has had a reasonable opportunity to investigate and resolve the issues internally before this Service intervenes. As a result, this investigation is focused on the events which took place up to the end of the complaints process, in January 2023.
  2. If the resident has concerns about the landlord’s subsequent handling of the matters raised in his complaint (such as ongoing filter changes) these would need to be raised with the landlord as a new complaint in the first instance. If the resident remained dissatisfied following the end of the complaints process, he could refer the matter to the Ombudsman for further consideration.

The landlord’s handling of 6-monthly filter changes

  1. The landlord has accepted responsibility for undertaking the services in question and has acknowledged within its complaint responses that its service delivery was poor. Therefore, the question before this Service is whether those failings amount to maladministration and, if so, whether appropriate redress was offered to put things right.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy says where it is responsible for carrying out repairs, it will do so within agreed timescales. The policy also requires it to monitor contractors, responsible for carrying out the repairs, via monthly contract meetings and through the use of Key Performance Indicators (KPI). One of the policy’s statement key objectives is to ‘provide an efficient, prompt, transparent and customer-focused repairs service ensuring high customer satisfaction’.
  3. The landlord accepted that it was responsible for 6-monthly filter changes. It has not provided this Service with a detailed repair record, but internal emails show that prior to the resident making his complaint, the filter was changed on 17 May 2021 and then again on 29 April 2022. The filter was then due to be changed in October 2022, but there is no evidence of this being done.
  4. The repair record for 29 April 2022 noted that the operative left a spare filter next to the ventilation unit, though there is no explanation for why this was done. It may have been to facilitate the next change, but this Service would not expect that the landlord or its contractor intended for the resident to change the filter when next due.
  5. The landlord has also not provided any evidence to show it was monitoring this schedule of work proactively with its contractor, or that it enquired about the lack of repairs with them in monthly meetings or through the use of KPI reports. It is clear that the filter was not being changed on a 6-monthly basis for some time prior to the complaint being made, and the landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that the resident had raised this with it previously.
  6. The landlord did not provide this Service or the resident with a reason why it had repeatedly failed to carry out the filter changes. Therefore, it is not possible to establish whether the delays were reasonable or understandable. It is not in doubt though that the resident had to chase the landlord for it to fulfil its obligation and, even then, it did so inconsistently. This was not in line with its own repair policy or this Service’s expectations and accepted good practice.
  7. The landlord took some steps after the complaint was logged to redress matters such as sincerely apologising for its failure and offering compensation for: its poor communication; the delay in repairs; and the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience. It also set out plans to address the issue moving forward by implementing a servicing schedule; albeit it did not expect to have this in place until a few months down the line. While the delay in implementing this schedule was not ideal, it was unavoidable due to the procurement and tender process the landlord was undertaking, which also required residents’ input; all of which necessarily takes time.
  8. These actions demonstrate that the landlord took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair; and put things right.
  9. However, the compensation offered does not sufficiently reflect the length of time the issue recurred. Further, the landlord does not appear to have fully considered the implications of the filters not being changed when they should. Although it said that it wants to make sure this does not happen again and that it must get quicker at responding to reports from residents, along with when to escalate, the landlord did not set out how it intends to do that and implement learnings.
  10. The failure to change the PIV filters as recommended carries potential health implications and would naturally be a source of concern for the resident. Though no evidence has been provided by either party which shows when and why the 6-monthly filter changes were recommended and agreed, it is reasonable to conclude that it was considered a necessary aspect of maintaining the PIV unit and its continued efficient functioning.
  11. Therefore, the failure to change the filters goes beyond just a broken promise; the landlord should be adhering to the schedule to ensure the property remains free of damp and mould. It is unacceptable that the resident had to chase it before the filter changes took place; the landlord needed to be proactive with this. While it set out a plan to implement a schedule from Autumn 2023, no evidence has been provided of whether the filter was changed (due in October 2022) following the complaint and then manually diarised for a 6-month follow up in the interim.
  12. These failings amount to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of 6-monthly filter changes. It is therefore ordered below to pay the resident a further £200, in addition to the £350 previously offered, for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  13. Due to gaps in the repair records provided, this investigation has needed to piece together when repairs were completed from references to events within the wider correspondence. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail without which the Ombudsman may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information received. However, the omissions indicate poor knowledge and information management by the landlord as it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
  14. This Service encourages landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023, we published our Spotlight on knowledge and information management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with the recommendations made in that report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless it can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the 6-monthly filter changes.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £200 compensation, in addition to the £350 already paid.
    2. Provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman.