Hyde Housing Association Limited (202233033)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233033

Hyde Housing Association Limited

2 October 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 the resident’s report of a window repair.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord in a house, The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable, due to having a “hearing impairment”.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 May 2022 to report the glass in her child’s bedroom window was smashed. The landlord attended on 26 May 2022 to measure up for a new window. It was unable to measure up, as it needed scaffolding to access the window. The landlord attended again on 30 June 2022, but it does not appear the repair took place at that time.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 December 2022 to make a complaint about the window repair. She said she was “very upset” that the window was not repaired, and had tried to call several times but nobody had got back to her.
  4. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 9 February 2023. It apologised for the “long drawn out process” the resident had experienced. It advised its contractor was attending to repair the window later that month. It gave a history of the repair and said it initially attended promptly, but “simply failed” to ensure the works took place. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It offered the resident £150 in compensation for its handling of the window repair, and £50 for complaint handling.
  5. The evidence indicates the repair did not happen in February 2023. The landlord measured up for the window in April 2023.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 July 2023 and expressed a concern the window was still not repaired. She said her son had cut his finger on the broken glass. The landlord opened a stage 2 complaint investigation, and signposted the resident to its liability insurer. It explained her concern about her son cutting his finger would need to be progressed as a personal injury claim, through its insurer.
  7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 13 July 2023, and upheld her complaint. It said it would fit the new window on 19 July 2023. It explained it had “failed” because it did not repair the window when it said it would. It apologised for the “added” delays and made an increased offer of £600 in compensation for the window repair. It also restated its £50 offer of compensation for complaint handling.
  8. The window was replaced on 19 July 2023.
  9. The resident contact this Service on 25 July 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She advised the window was now replaced, but was left in a “poor condition” for 18 months, causing injuries. The resident said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s report of a window repair

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. For the purposes of the Act, windows are considered a part of the structure of the building.
  2. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards.
  3. The landlord’s repairs procedure states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours to complete a “make safe” repair. For other non emergency repairs it states it will attend within 20 working days.
  4. When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, she raised a concern that the broken window had caused an injury to her son. The serious nature of this is acknowledged, and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers personal injury was caused by the landlord’s handling of the issue. It is noted the landlord provided advice about how she could do this, on 3 July 2023, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
  5. The evidence indicates the landlord first attended to inspect the window on 26 May 2022, 20 days after the resident first reported the repair. While this was within its target timeframe for a non emergency repairs, this was unreasonable given what the resident reported. The resident reported a broken window, which is a potential hazard. It is therefore concerning the landlord did not attend as an emergency appointment to see if it needed to complete a “make safe” repair. This is evidence the landlord failed to have due regard for its responsibilities under the HHSRS.
  6. As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord to outline its position on whether a make safe repair was done. It did not respond to this specific query; it is therefore reasonable to conclude no make safe repair was done.
  7. The landlord was unable to attend to the repair in May 2022, and then again in June 2022 due to access issues. The evidence shows that it did not follow up on the repair with the resident. She was evidently distressed at the conditions in her child’s bedroom, that it was not proactive in following up on the repair increased the distress she experienced. The resident was further inconvenienced by the fact she had to raise a complaint, in December 2022, in order for the landlord to take action on the repair.
  8. When the resident raised her complaint in December 2022, she expressed a concern that the window was a “hazard” because her sons kept touching it. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord sought to complete an urgent inspection at that time. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident put it on notice about a potential hazard relating to broken glass. That it did not seek to complete a “make safe” repair at the time was unreasonable. Its lack of response to the resident’s concerns about safety increased the distress she experienced.
  9. The landlord’s stage 1 response, of February 2023, appropriately apologised for the delays in completing the repair, and offered the resident compensation. The complaint response was detailed and transparent about its handling of the issue. However, despite acknowledging failings about a lack of follow up on the repair, it made similar mistakes again. The repair did not go ahead in February 2023. This further delay increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
  10. The evidence indicates that a further delay was caused in April 2023 when the landlord made an “error”. The notes show the window order did not “reach the contractor”. This was a further failing that increased the delay, and the detriment caused to the resident.
  11. The landlord was not proactive in providing the resident with updates about the repair, as evidenced by an internal email on 4 July 2023. It said it could not “locate any updates regarding communication with the resident”. This is evidence that the landlord failed to learn from the failings identified in its stage 1 complaint, and was not proactive in updating the resident. The resident, again, had to raise a complaint in order to get the landlord to take the appropriate action, increasing the inconvenience she experienced.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of 13 July 2023, appropriately apologised and made an increased offer of compensation in an attempt to put things right. However, its response failed to address any of the resident’s concerns about safety, and did not set out what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. This means it missed an opportunity to show learning, and build trust with the resident.
  13. We welcome the landlord’s decision to revisit its offer of compensation in order to try and put right its evident failings. However, we have determined its offer of £600 in compensation did not fully put things right. It did not address the resident’s concerns about safety in any detail, despite her raising a “hazard”. Nor did it consider her concerns about the issue impacting on the use of her property. The compensation the landlord offered did not reflect the loss of amenity the resident experienced.
  14. The evidence indicates the landlord did not complete a “make safe” repair, in line with its procedure. This was despite the resident raising concerns that the issue was impacting on her use of the property. We therefore consider it appropriate to order the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises the resident did not have full enjoyment of the property. This covers the substantial period the repair to the window was outstanding. A 5% amenity loss calculation is therefore applied. The period considered for this calculation is 5 May 2022 (when the landlord was first put on notice) to 19 July 2023, (when it replaced the window). This period covers 63 weeks.
  15. During the period covering her complaint, the resident was paying a total of £342.12 per week in rent. We have calculated that 5% of the rent for the 63 week period was £1,077.68, and have ordered the landlord to pay that amount in recognition of the loss of amenity. While we acknowledge that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable taking all of the circumstances into account.
  16. Considering the detriment caused to the resident, including loss of amenity, we have determined there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the window repair.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its policy states that it will issue stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days.
  2. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not progress with the complaint when it was made, in December 2022. This was unreasonable and a failing in its complaint handling. The landlord operated an unfair and hard to access complaints process that inconvenienced the resident.
  3. The landlord did not raise the window repair again, until it had progressed with the complaint investigation in February 2023. This is evidence that its delay in progressing with the complaint, contributed to its poor handling of the substantive issue. The landlord’s complaint handling failings increased the distress the resident experienced in its handling of the window repair.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 44 working days after the resident complained. This was unreasonable, and well outside of the timeframes mandated by its complaint procedure, and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. It is noted the landlord appropriately apologised and offered redress for the delay. However, it offered little in the way of an explanation of why there was a delay, or what learning it had done about its admitted failing. This was a further failing in its complaint handling and it missed an opportunity to show appropriate learning, and build trust with the resident.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of July 2023, was sent within the timeframes set out in its procedure and the Code, which was reasonable. While the stage 2 complaint response appropriately restated the landlord’s compensation offer for the delay at stage 1, it again failed to show any learning about its complaint handling. This was a further failing.
  6. Considering the impact of the delays in progressing with the complaint had on the substantive issue of the complaint, we have determined the landlord’s offer of £50 did not fully put things right. The complaint handling delays increased the delay in booking a follow up repair to the window in 2023. Considering the detriment caused, and the lack of learning shown, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay a further £150 in addition to the £50 offered so far, bringing the total compensation to £200 for complaint handling. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a window repair.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Instruct a senior director to apologise, in person or by telephone according to the resident’s preference, for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £2,277.68 in compensation. The landlord’s offer of £650 in compensation should be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the window repair.
      2. £1,077.68 in recognition of the loss of amenity caused by its handling of the window repair.
      3. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
  2. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its handling of the window repair. It must identify points of learning to prevent similar failings happening again. The outcome of the review must be shared in writing with this Service, and the resident.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the remind its staff responsible for investigating complaints the importance of:
    1. Progressing with a complaint investigation in line with the timeframes set out in its procedure, and the Code.
    2. Addressing all aspects of a resident’s complaint in its response.
    3. Showing appropriate learning about complaint handling delays in its responses.