Hyde Housing Association Limited (202227122)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227122

Hyde Housing Association Limited

27 February 2025

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 leaseholder 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 leaseholder’s reports of:
1. External cracks appearing at the property.
2. Repairs to the bin store gate.
3. Safety issues with the ground in the car park area.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The leaseholder is the leaseholder of the property, a flat in a low-rise purpose-built block. The leaseholder sub-lets the property. The landlord is the freeholder of the building.
The leaseholder told the landlord about cracks appearing in the building in January 2020. She then told the landlord about repair issues with the communal fence and bin store gate as early as January 2021. However, the landlord did not complete any repairs. She complained to the landlord about the issues in August 2021. In her complaint she also noted issues with the car park being slippery and a potential trip hazard. It appears the landlord responded, however it has not shared a copy of this response with this Service.
The leaseholder continued to chase the landlord for an update on the issues throughout 2022 and raised her concerns to this Service in February 2023. Due to the length of time that had passed since the original complaint, we asked the landlord to open a new complaint.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 5 April 2023. It agreed it should have completed the repairs to the fence and bin store sooner and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It confirmed it had completed the fence repairs on 31 March 2023 and it was fitting a new lock to the bin store on 5 April 2023. It confirmed that the leaseholder could speak with its surveyor or property manager for updates on communal repairs and provided their contact details. It offered £150 compensation, comprising £50 for its delayed complaint response, £50 for the delayed repairs and £50 for overall distress and inconvenience caused.
The leaseholder asked the landlord to escalate her complaint in September 2023. In doing so, she said that the landlord had yet to take any action to resolve the cracks at the property, the bin store was still not fully repaired and the car park area was still slippery. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 24 October 2023. It agreed it had failed to repair the bin store in a timely manner and confirmed it had since completed the repair on 19 October 2023. It also agreed it had not communicated with the leaseholder about the cracks in the building. It said the surveyor would now be sending monthly updates on progress and increased its offer of compensation to £500. This was comprised of £100 for complaint handling delays, £100 for time and trouble, £150 for the delayed repairs and £150 for overall distress and inconvenience.
The leaseholder remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred the matter to this Service on 10 March 2024. She said she had not been receiving the landlord’s monthly updates as promised. She wanted the landlord to resolve the remaining issues to a good standard. She also wanted to receive compensation. However, she wanted reassurance that this would not mean the landlord could close the complaint without following up on the outstanding issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The leaseholder’s initial complaint to the landlord included an issue with repairs to the communal fencing. The leaseholder has since informed this Service that the landlord has satisfactorily resolved this issue. She therefore did not wish us to investigate this element of her complaint. For this reason, this part of her complaint has not been assessed as part of this investigation.
When assessing the detriment caused by any failings found by this investigation, this Service has considered the impact on the leaseholder. This is in line with our outcomes and remedies guidance. We have not considered the impact to the occupying tenants of the leaseholder. Separate recourse is available to the leaseholder’s tenants outside of this Scheme.

The reports of external cracks appearing at the property.

The leaseholder first raised concerns about external cracks appearing in the building in January 2020. There is evidence of the leaseholder repeatedly asking the landlord for updates throughout 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024. The leaseholder also told the landlord that internal cracks were appearing. The leaseholder was concerned that these cracks were a sign of a structural issue and that, if left untreated, this could have a serious impact on her property. In response to these reports, the landlord:
1. Confirmed its contractor had attended to the cracks 3 times in 2020 and had referred the case back to its surveying team in December 2020.
2. Confirmed its surveyor had inspected on 7 October 2021, but did not provide any details of the outcome of this inspection.
3. Told the leaseholder it had instructed a specialist contractor to attend to survey the cracks and they were in the process of arranging access on 23 February 2023.
4. Confirmed the contact details of the relevant members of staff the leaseholder could contact for updates on ongoing communal issues in its stage 1 response of 5 April 2023.
5. Agreed that its surveyor would send monthly proactive updates to the leaseholder following its stage 2 response of 24 October 2023, however there is no evidence of this happening.
6. Told the leaseholder it had checked the building for movement on 7 December 2023 and noted it was still moving. It confirmed it would be removing some trees and vegetation and would continue to monitor the movement.
7. Inspected the property on a monthly basis, on average, throughout 2024. The inspection reports vary in whether the landlord mentions the external cracks or not. There is no evidence of the landlord sharing these inspections reports with the leaseholder.
The leaseholder reported both the internal and external cracks were getting bigger as early as January 2022. It is also evident that the landlord’s contractor referred the cracks back to the landlord for further investigation in December 2020. It would be reasonable to conclude that the cracks may have been evidence of potential subsidence. The landlord’s Subsidence Procedure says, upon receipt of a report of potential subsidence, it will:
1. Create a case on its system recording all details of the cracks identified.
2. Carry out an inspection to gather any further information required. If the attending surveyor is in any doubt about whether subsidence has occurred, they should treat the case as subsidence until confirmed otherwise.
3. If the surveyor can rule out subsidence, then they should proceed with the required repairs.
4. Notify its insurer that suspected subsidence has occurred. The insurer will then:
  1. Organise a joint inspection for the landlord with the Loss Adjuster.
  2. Identify the cause of the subsidence.
  3. Explain the findings of the investigation to the reporting resident or leaseholder, if applicable.
  4. Provide written confirmation of their findings to the landlord, including whether or not subsidence has been confirmed and what work is required to rectify it.
  5. Liaise with the landlord to organise the required repair works or arrange for these to be completed, depending on the estimated costs of the work.
5. Install monitoring equipment after repairing the cause of the subsidence to confirm the issue has been fully rectified.
6. Organise repairs to the damage caused by the subsidence and inspect these after completion.
There is no evidence of the landlord completing any of the above steps. Although the landlord told the leaseholder it had referred the matter to a specialist contractor for monitoring, and the leaseholder agrees a contractor did survey the property, there is no evidence of the outcome of this survey or of the alleged ongoing monitoring.
In failing to take these actions, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its subsidence procedure and this was inappropriate. The landlord also repeatedly promised to share regular updates with the leaseholder on its progress in handling the matter and failed to follow through on these promises. It was understandable that the leaseholder was concerned about the apparent lack of progress in resolving the matter given she had been reporting the issue since January 2020. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to share a plan of action with the leaseholder. Had it done so, it could have better managed the leaseholder’s expectations about what the next steps might be.
Although the landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that it had failed to keep the leaseholder informed about the management of the cracks, the landlord did not alter its approach. The landlord did not share the outcome of the survey completed by its specialist contractor with the leaseholder and there is no evidence of the landlord updating the leaseholder monthly, as it promised in its stage 2 response. Instead, the onus remained on the leaseholder to contact the landlord for updates. This eventually led to her making multiple complaints about the same issue in an attempt to find a resolution. The landlord was ultimately responsible for resolving the issue and the leaseholder spent an unreasonable amount of time and effort chasing the landlord for updates.
The landlord offered the leaseholder £100 for the time and trouble she had incurred in raising the matter and £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused. Although it is positive the landlord acknowledged these failures and offered £250, this offer was not proportionate to the likely impact on the leaseholder of having to chase the matter for 3 and a half years prior to the stage 2 response. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for awards up to £500 for major delays in delivering a service. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay an additional £250 compensation in line with the maximum amount set out in its own policy for this excessive delay in handling the leaseholder’s concerns.
As part of her complaint, the leaseholder repeatedly asked the landlord to share copies of all its inspection reports with her. This was not an unreasonable request as she was understandably concerned about the potential impact of the cracks on her property. The leaseholder told the landlord on several occasions that this reassurance was what she most wanted to resolve her complaint, rather than an offer of financial compensation. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to share this information with the leaseholder. If the landlord had a good reason not to share this information it could have explained this to the leaseholder and provided her with any information possible in the meantime. In line with our dispute resolution principles to put things right, the landlord must share the outcome of any specialist inspections completed at the property to date and confirm in writing to the leaseholder:
1. Whether it has confirmed the cracks were caused by subsidence.
2. What steps it has taken to date to repair the cause of any subsidence.
3. An action plan, with timescales, for any ongoing monitoring and for completing any outstanding repairs.
4. How it will communicate any changes to this action plan with the leaseholder in the future.
5. Contact details for the relevant team overseeing the project who will support the leaseholder with any queries she may have.
In conclusion, the landlord has failed to evidence that it has taken any tangible steps in line with its own policies in managing or resolving the cracks in the building. The landlord also failed to communicate effectively with the leaseholder throughout the process. This Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter and orders have been made below.

Repairs to the bin store gate.

The leaseholder reported to the landlord that there was an issue with the bin store gate as early as August 2021. There is no evidence of the landlord completing any repairs until 19 October 2023, over 2 years later. This was despite it originally telling the leaseholder it would complete the repair on 5 April 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify timescales for this type of repair. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude this repair should be completed within a non-urgent timeframe, usually 28 days. It was therefore inappropriate that it took the landlord more than 2 years to complete the repair.
The landlord apologised and offered £150 for delayed repairs within its stage 2 response. When a landlord acknowledges failures and makes an attempt to put things right, as is the case here, we will assess the proportionality of the redress offered in line with the severity of the failures identified. The impact of this specific repair on the leaseholder was relatively minimal as it was in a communal area and not directly impacting the property. Although the leaseholder chased the landlord several times on this repair, it did resolve the matter prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint response. Therefore, the landlord made effective use of its complaints process to resolve the matter and the financial award made was proportionate and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for delays having a medium impact on the leaseholder. This investigation has found the landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of this matter. It is recommended that the landlord pay the leaseholder the £150 offered in its stage 2 response.

The reports of safety issues with the ground in the car park area.

The evidence shows the leaseholder first reported an issue with the ground in the car park being slippery and a trip hazard in her complaint in August 2021. The leaseholder raised the matter again as part of her complaint made in March 2023. There is evidence of the landlord filling a large hole in the car park area on 2 August 2023, but there is no evidence of the landlord taking action to date on the leaseholder’s reports of the car park being very slippery.
The landlord also failed to acknowledge that the leaseholder had raised this issue within her complaint and did not respond on the matter in either of its complaint responses. It therefore missed the opportunity to resolve the issue or manage the leaseholder’s expectations had it inspected the area and determined no repairs were required. In failing to do so, the landlord failed to act in accordance with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as it did not address each element of the complaint made.
This Service therefore orders that the landlord complete an updated inspection of the area. It should then confirm the outcome of this inspection to the leaseholder, including the timescales for completing any required repairs. The landlord is also ordered to pay the leaseholder £100, comprising £50 for the delay in resolving the matter and £50 for its failure to address the issue through its complaints process. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for failures which the landlord has failed to proportionately put right.
In conclusion, the landlord failed to evidence that it investigated this part of the leaseholder’s complaint and failed to complete any required repairs in a timely manner. This investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter and orders have been made below.

The associated complaint.

The leaseholder originally raised a complaint to the landlord in August 2021. As outlined above, there is no record of the landlord formally responding to this complaint. When the leaseholder contacted this Service about the outstanding issues, this Service asked the landlord to open a new complaint in March 2023 due to the length of time that had passed. This approach is in line with the Code. It would, however, have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that the leaseholder had raised the issues detailed in the complaint in the past and consider this when offering remedies.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £100 compensation in recognition of its delays in handling the leaseholder’s complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy notes it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In this case, the landlord responded generally within these timescales. However, given the leaseholder had originally raised her complaint in 2021 and the landlord did not issue a formal response, it was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation for the overall delay in resolving the matter. That being said, the landlord failed to explicitly acknowledge that it had missed the opportunity to resolve the complaint in 2021 and the landlord is ordered to apologise to the leaseholder for this.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to drive service improvements. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles, as outlined in the Code: to learn from outcomes. Although the landlord acknowledged some failures in its complaint responses, it failed to outline what it had learned from this and what it might do differently in future. In this case, the landlord made promises to the leaseholder about how it would improve its service in both its stage 1 and 2 responses. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate it had done so on both occasions. This is evident as the leaseholder was still chasing for updates on the cracks in 2024. This is not in line with the Code and this was inappropriate.
In conclusion, the landlord acted appropriately in compensating the leaseholder for its overall delayed handling of the complaint. However, it failed to demonstrate it had learned from its mistakes and failed to implement any changes following its complaint responses. This investigation has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and we have made orders below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of external cracks appearing at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its failures in handling the repairs to the bin store gate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of safety issues with the ground in the car park area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the leaseholder for the failures outlined in this report, including its failure to investigate her complaint in 2021.
2. Provide the leaseholder with copies of any relevant inspection reports carried out to date which relate to the external cracks appearing at the property, including those carried out by its specialist contractor.
3. Confirm in writing to the leaseholder:
  1. Whether it has confirmed the cracks were caused by subsidence.
  2. What steps it has taken to date to repair the cause of any subsidence.
  3. An action plan, with timescales, for any ongoing monitoring and for completing any outstanding repairs.
  4. How it will communicate any changes to this action plan with the leaseholder in the future.
  5. Contact details for the relevant team overseeing the project who will support the leaseholder with any queries she may have.
4. Complete an up to date inspection of the car park area and confirm the outcome of this inspection in writing to the leaseholder. This should include expected timescales for completing any identified repairs.
5. Pay the leaseholder the £350 offered in its stage 2 response.
6. Pay the leaseholder an additional £350, comprising:
  1. £250 for any additional distress and inconvenience the leaseholder likely incurred as a result of its failures in handling her reports of cracks appearing at the property.
  2. £100 for any additional distress and inconvenience the leaseholder likely incurred as a result of its failures in handling her reports of safety issues with the ground in the car park area.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the leaseholder the £150 for repair delays to the bin store gate, offered in its stage 2 response, if not already paid.