Hyde Housing Association Limited (202229264)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229264

Hyde Housing Association Limited

4 June 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs following a leak.
    2. The resident’s request for a kitchen replacement.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a three-bedroom house.
  2. The resident suffered a leak into his property in 2020. Following this, the landlord erected scaffolding in order to complete roof repairs. The resident e-mailed the landlord about the repairs still not having been completed on 6 May 2021. He said that the roof leak had not been made safe and that the kitchen unit, doors and sink had water damage as a result of this. The resident continued to discuss this with the landlord throughout 2021, requesting the works be completed, scaffolding taken down and the kitchen be replaced due to the damage.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 15 November 2021. He was unhappy that scaffolding remained up and that he had not had any updates from the landlord about his kitchen replacement. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 24 November 2021 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 December 2021. The landlord said that it had completed the necessary repairs to the roof in April 2021 and that scaffolding should have been removed at this time. For this delay and its communication about the work, it offered the resident £150 compensation. The landlord added that following report of a new leak, it would now have to perform a new inspection, meaning that the scaffolding would not be taken down as planned. The landlord also informed the resident that he was not on the waiting list for a new kitchen. It said it could replace any items which were damaged but that it did not operate a planned replacement scheme for kitchens.
  4. The new leak was fixed by the landlord in June 2022. However, whilst this was ongoing water damage was caused to the ceiling of a storage room. The resident and the landlord also continued to discuss the kitchen replacement throughout 2022.
  5. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 22 February 2023 to discuss his complaint. On the same day, he escalated his landlord complaint to stage 2 of its complaint’s procedure. He said that his concerns had been ongoing for years with little progress. He said that although the roof leak had been fixed, the damage caused to his ceiling had not. He explained that this had resulted in damp and mould. The resident added that the kitchen had become hard to use due to damages.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 17 May 2023. It offered the resident £350 compensation for its failure to repair the storage room ceiling. This consisted of £50 for complaint handling failures, £100 for his patience and effort throughout the complaints process and £200 for delays in completing the repairs. It also raised jobs for 6 and 7 June 2023 to complete the ceiling repair and any necessary repairs to the kitchen. It said however that it would not be replacing the entire kitchen.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 8 June 2023 to advise that he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said that he had denied entry to the landlord’s contractors on 6 June 2023 as the repairs they were due to carry out were not the repairs he had expected. The resident said to resolve his complaint he would like a full replacement of the kitchen. He added that he expected the ceiling repair to be carried out.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak

  1. The landlord’s repair policy has two timescales. It says it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and make these safe within 24 hours. All non-urgent repairs will be ‘attended to within 20 working days and arranged for the soonest available time slot convenient’.
  2. When the resident raised his complaint, he was unhappy that scaffolding had not been taken down following a leak which had required a repair to the roof. The landlord informed the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that all necessary roofing work had been completed in April 2021, but it had failed to take down the scaffolding. This was up for an additional 8 months at the time the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response.
  3. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for its delay. The resident has not raised any continued dissatisfaction related to this matter when escalating the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process or to the Ombudsman. Given this, and the extent of the likely distress and inconvenience the delay in striking the scaffolding caused, the Ombudsman concludes that this was a reasonable offer of redress.
  4. Between the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints, another roof leak led to a storage room ceiling being damaged. When escalating the complaint to stage 2, the resident was unhappy that the landlord had failed to complete the remedial repairs to this ceiling. A work order for the roof repair was raised on 17 June 2022, whilst the landlord raised a work order for the storage room ceiling repair to be completed on 21 September 2022.
  5. However, after the contractor was unable to access the property, this job was cancelled. The landlord arranged a new appointment on 6 June 2023 where there were again issues accessing the property to complete the works. It is possible that there may have been confusion about this as the resident expressed that he did not wish for the landlord to complete these works. It appears the resident may have been referring to the kitchen repairs rather than the storage room ceiling works.
  6. The landlord’s records indicate that the repair to the ceiling was completed on 11 September 2023, meaning it has now completed the repairs following the leak.  This was almost a year from the job being raised.
  7. There was a significant delay in the landlord completing the remedial works to the storage room ceiling. The roof repair was resolved in June 2022 and the landlord confirmed at least as early as September 2022 that the ceiling repair could be completed. In recognition of this delay, the landlord awarded the resident £200 compensation in its May 2023 complaint response. Given the delay period of at least 12 months, the Ombudsman is of the view that the £200 compensation award for this failing was insufficient.
  8. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £200 for its delays and failings in completing the repair to the resident’s ceiling. This is in addition to the £350 mentioned across its complaint responses. These delays represented maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue.

 

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen

  1. The landlord’s Stock Investment Delivery Procedure does not currently include any cyclic replacement of bathrooms or kitchens. If a resident seeks a replacement of a kitchen, they need to inform the landlord who will then inspect and complete a Component Renewal (CR) form. This will then be considered by the landlord’s Stock Investment team.
  2. The resident requested a full replacement of his kitchen as far back as 2021. Following this, the landlord fulfilled a CR form and provided this to the relevant team. The landlord discussed internally the possibilities available in both May 2022 and April 2023 to resolve the concerns the resident had with his kitchen. However, the landlord’s decision following this was that the kitchen did not warrant a full refurbishment and instead that any necessary repairs should be carried out.
  3. The landlord acted fairly by following its policy. It considered the resident’s request, carried out the necessary inspection, and considered the possible resolutions. The Ombudsman is not able to determine if the kitchen would warrant replacement, but instead considers whether the landlord has reasonably considered the resident’s report and followed its policy. The landlord’s decision not to replace the kitchen was appropriately based on the outcomes of its inspection.
  4. However, there were delays in the landlord’s assessment of the need for a replacement. The resident raised this request at least as early as November 2021, but the landlord did not make any internal decision until May 2022. This represented a significant period of time where the resident was left without an answer and continued to chase the landlord for updates.
  5. The landlord has attempted to visit the resident to complete the repairs it believed needed to be undertaken on 19 July 2022 and 6 June 2023. On both occasions, the resident refused entry, saying that he wanted a full replacement of the kitchen. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 June 2023 to inform him that if he did want it to complete the kitchen repairs, he should contact it. This was fair from the landlord.
  6. Nevertheless, the landlord has failed to appropriately communicate with the resident. In its internal correspondence, the landlord stated that it is unclear if its decision about the replacement was ever fed back to the resident. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to clearly outline, in writing, its decision about the replacement and the reasons behind this – especially when the matter had been ongoing for several years. The landlord’s failure to fairly communicate with the resident has led to him chasing this when it had already made its decision. This has apparently led to confusion from the resident about the instances where contractors have arrived at his property to complete repairs when he was still chasing a replacement.
  7. The landlord’s initial delay in the assessment and failure to communicate openly and fairly with the resident represented maladministration. For this, the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this amount for a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  8. The resident informed the Ombudsman that since bringing his complaint to us, the landlord has said he has now been placed on the waiting list for a new kitchen. He informed this Service that since being told this, he has had no further updates from the landlord.
  9. The landlord should write to the resident, apologising for its failure to clearly communicate with him about its internal review and decision. It should also outline its current stance on the replacement of the kitchen.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. At stage 1, it says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It then says it will provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement being sent. When a complaint is escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord says it will provide its complaint response within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s records are not clear as to when the resident first raised this complaint. The landlord’s internal notes indicate that the resident contacted it in May 2021 about making a complaint. It is unclear what action the landlord took in relation to this report and if this was handled as an informal complaint.
  3. The earliest evidence of the resident raising a formal complaint is on 15 November 2021 when he confirmed he wished for the matter to be escalated. The landlord acknowledged this on 24 November 2021, and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 December 2021. This was 7 working days and 11 working days respectively. Whilst this was slightly outside of the timescales given in the landlord’s policy, the extent of the delays likely did not cause any additional distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  4. There was a significant delay between the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and the resident requesting an escalation to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. Given that the matter was still ongoing, it represented good practice from the landlord to allow the resident to still escalate his complaint without having to raise a new complaint.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 22 February 2023. The landlord then provided its complaint response on 17 May 2023. This was 57 working days after the complaint had been escalated. This was outside of the timescales specified in the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord did however update the resident on 24 April 2023 to inform him it would be providing a full decision by 18 May 2023.
  6. For its overall complaint handling failures, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation. Given the level of the landlord’s failures and its good practice in escalating the complaint to stage 2, this represented a reasonable offer of redress from the landlord. If this amount has not already been paid to the resident, it should reoffer this amount.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs following a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen replacement.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for the failings in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £400 compensation, made up of:
      1. £200 for the time and trouble and inconvenience caused by its failures in the handling of repairs following a leak (this is in addition to the £350 repairs related compensation it awarded in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses).
      2. £200 for its failures to fairly communicate about the replacement of the kitchen.
    2. Apologise to the resident for these failings.
    3. Write to the resident to outline its current position about the kitchen replacement. If the landlord is now going to replace the kitchen, it should advise the resident of an estimated timeline for doing so. If the landlord is not going to replace the kitchen, it should give a full explanation as to why advise the resident how to report any new repairs issues.
    4. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £150 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for complaint handling failures if it has not already done so.