Hyde Housing Association Limited (202300279)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300279

Hyde Housing Association Limited

18 December 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 repairs to the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

A tenancy assignment took place on 1 March 2023 following a mutual exchange. The resident became a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association.
The property is described as a 3-bedroom ground floor flat in a medium rise block.
The landlord told us that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the resident’s communication to the landlord stated that she has medical conditions such as fibromyalgia, chronic pain, fatigue, stress, anxiety and depression. In addition, her daughter had a persistent cough.
The landlord carried out a mutual exchange inspection at the property on 28 December 2022. The inspection showed that the outgoing tenant had window keys, the kitchen was clean and functional and the door handle to the patio required repair. With regard to the bathroom, it was noted that the extractor fan was not working, the wash hand basin (WHB) was blocked and the shower was not checked. It noted that the outgoing tenant should register the identified repairs.
The resident made online complaints to the landlord in March 2023. The resident reported the following matters:
1. On 8 March 2023 – the patio door handle had fallen off and she could not open the door.
2. On 15 March 2023 – the kitchen tap did not correctly function and a piece was missing from under the tap. Also, the communal door handle and door lock was broken so the fob was not working.
3. On 21 March 2023 – the toilet was not flushing correctly. Also, the windows did not have locks and she lived in a ground floor property.
The resident complained to the landlord on 22 March 2023 that when she completed the mutual exchange, she was not fully aware of the property condition. The resident went on to say that the outgoing tenant had left the property in a bad condition and had not cleaned the property as required. Since 6 March 2023, she had not lived in the property as the toilet and bathroom were not usable. The resident went on to say that she suffered from anxiety and depression and the property did not have basic washing or toilet facilities.
The resident added that appointments arranged for 20 March 2023 were cancelled and she was not informed. The customer service officer she had spoken to had been dismissive and did not try to find a solution. The resident provided her preferred outcomes:
1. Bath, shower and bath taps replaced.
2. Toilet flush and toilet replaced.
3. Kitchen cupboards replaced and straightened
4. Window locks provided. The resident explained this was necessary as she lived on the ground floor and was a survivor of domestic violence.
The following day, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised its contractors had been asked to make a convenient appointment.
The resident completed the online complaint form on 30 March 2023. She complained that she was unable to use the bathroom as the shower thermostat was broken and she could not control the water temperature. The defect to the shower was a health and safety issue and she had 3 children who had been unable to use the bathroom since she accepted the property.
On 31 March 2023, the resident completed the landlord’s online complaint form to report damage to the bathroom wall. The resident advised that she had tried to paint the wall and, when doing so, the plaster had come off. In addition, the communal door was insecure and not working as the handle was broken. The resident advised that her property was located next to the communal door.
The landlord informed the resident that her complaints would be merged and it would produce a single complaint response.
The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 10 May 2023. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and said:
1. Its surveyor had attended and repairs were raised.
2. It had arranged in the first instance for the bath to be enamelled and then replaced.
3. On 18 May 2023, the following repairs would be carried out:
  1. Replace bath, WHB and mixer taps.
  2. Overhaul toilet.
  3. Carry out mould wash to affected areas of bathroom walls and ceiling.
  4. Replace faulty door handle to lounge.
4. The specialist door contractor advised that it had ordered a new motor for the communal door lock and, once received, this would be replaced.
5. It agreed an overall compensation award of £100, made up of £50 for the repairs delays and £50 for distress and inconvenience experienced.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 24 May 2023. She advised that the 18 May 2023 appointment for the landlord’s contractor to complete the outstanding repairs had not been kept
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 19 June 2023. It said:
1. Its contractors were present at the resident’s property that day.
2. It agreed that it did not carry out the works it agreed to and had not communicated well with the resident.
3. It apologised for the time it had taken to complete the repair.
4. The compensation award was increased to £700, made up of £250 for patience during the complaint process, £300 for repairs delays and £150 for distress and inconvenience caused.
5. It acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with the property condition. With regard to the missed appointments on 18 May 2023 and 19 May 2023, it had not given her prior notification that its contractors would not be attending. A further appointment had been arranged for 19 June 2023.
6. Its contractors would be overseeing the repair to completion and it provided the resident with its contact number.
The resident reported on 27 June 2023 that mould in the bathroom had spread to the living room. A mould wash was carried out on 30 June 2023 to the bathroom and living room walls and ceilings.
On 12 February 2024, the landlord sent a further letter to the resident, advising it had reviewed the complaint and increased its compensation offer to £1,050. The compensation award was broken down as: £200 for its complaint handling failures, £150 for her patience during the complaints and repair process, £150 for her effort, £300 for the delays completing the repairs and £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord went on to say that the award of £1,050 included the previous award of £700.
The letter also said that it had completed bathroom repairs and the repairs required to the communal door in August 2023. It had increased the compensation award as it recognised that after the complaint process ended, her experience had not improved and it did not complete its agreed actions in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord outlined how it had learnt from the complaint and the corporate measures taken to improve complaint handling such as the introduction of a new customer relationship management system, training for staff and the return of its repairs service ‘in house.’ The landlord ended by apologising for the difficulties experienced and agreed that the level of service fell below its normal levels.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident told this Service that she had agreed to the increased compensation award but this had not been paid by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy terms and landlord policies

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, there is an implied term within the tenancy agreement that the landlord will:
1. Keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
2. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property for sanitation.
Once the landlord has notice of a repair, they should carry out the repair within a reasonable time.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy guidance confirms its obligations to its residents. It advises that it will inspect the property before the exchange is completed.
The landlord’s responsive repair procedure says that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. Non-emergency repairs will be completed within 20 working days.

Scope of investigation

While this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s action, or lack of action, have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint regarding the impact to her health and her children. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her family.
The resident has told this Service that a carpet was damaged following a leak from a toilet. This was not reported as part of this complaint to the landlord. If the resident has not already done so, she should raise this issue with her landlord. The landlord should confirm to the resident the steps it will take to address her concerns such as considering her request under its complaints procedure or by referring her report to its insurers for their consideration.
This investigation will therefore only consider events from December 2022 up to the final complaint response in June 2023. Nevertheless, we will also consider how the landlord delivered on promises made through the complaints process and the further offer of redress it made in February 2024. This is on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and considering all the available evidence.
The resident raised further concerns on 16 October 2023 about damp and mould, faulty windows and inadequate repairs that remain unaddressed by the landlord. However, in the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s more recent concerns. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that we may not consider complaints which are made to us prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure. Were the resident to remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response once these issues have completed the complaint process, she can refer it to this Service for consideration.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property

Each of the resident’s concerns which were the subject of the resident’s complaint will be addressed in turn below.

Bathroom repairs

The landlord has an obligation to ensure the property has a functional bathroom, including appropriate washing facilities. The housing officer undertook a mutual exchange inspection in December 2022 as required under its mutual exchange policy. With regard to the bathroom, repairs were identified to the wash hand basin and extractor fan. These were completed before the resident moved into the property in March 2023. This was reasonable.
The landlord subsequently raised work orders on 23 March 2023 to replace the shower, reseal the bath until it was replaced and replace the wash hand basin and mixer taps. An appointment was arranged for 18 April 2023 for the repairs to be completed. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor attended but failed to carry out any repairs to the bathroom. The contractor informed the resident that this was because the landlord had not correctly described the repairs. This was not accurate.
The landlord’s contractor misinformed the resident as they previously attended the resident’s property and the landlord had spoken to the supervisor before the visit about the repairs required. Therefore, it should have attended the resident’s property with the correct tools to complete the relevant repairs. Its failure to do so caused inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord arranged another appointment for 18 May 2023 for the bathroom repairs to be completed. Its records do not explain why it did not arrange an earlier appointment given renewal works were still needed to ensure the bathroom was fully functional. The resident experienced a further delay of 20 working days until the May 2023 appointment which caused distress and inconvenience. This was compounded by the contractor’s failure to then keep the appointment that had been arranged. It is noted that the landlord apologised to the resident for this.
The landlord replaced the bath on 11 July 2023 taking 74 working days. This was unreasonable as it significantly exceeded the landlord’s non-emergency repair standard of 20 working days. The bath taps were incorrectly installed causing further inconvenience to the resident and her family until they were corrected on 25 October 2023.
Landlords should maintain accurate records on actions taken to respond to repair reports. The landlord agreed to replace the wash hand basin in March 2023. However, its records show that in October 2023, it initially ordered an incorrectly sized replacement. The landlord’s records do not explain the inordinate delay experienced by the resident or demonstrate the actual date that the wash hand basin was replaced. This is unreasonable as the repair was completed significantly outside its non-emergency repair standard. The evidence shows that by the time the bathroom was painted in December 2023, the wash hand basin was installed. Nevertheless, the landlord’s failure to proactively manage the repair resulted in excessive delays to the resident and her children.
The resident maintained that she was unable to live in the property due to the bathroom condition. The landlord is responsible for ensuring that throughout the tenancy, the property is habitable. Therefore, it is unreasonable that the landlord did not specifically address the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses. The resident was clearly dissatisfied with the condition of the bathroom when she moved into the property and repeatedly told the landlord that she was not living in the property due to this. The landlord should have assessed and confirmed to the resident whether it considered that the bathing facilities in the property were suitable for her use. It is unreasonable that it failed to do so.
Ultimately, the resident experienced inappropriate delays in bathroom repairs being completed despite her habitability concerns.

Report of toilet flush(s) not working

The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the toilets in the property. It is noted that the property has 2 toilets with 1 toilet located within the bathroom. Once landlords are given notice of a repair need, they should inspect and carry out works promptly and in line with policy timescales.
The landlord received 2 reports in March 2023 reporting toilet defects. It was informed that the flush was not working to 1 toilet on 21 March 2023. However, the report does not say which toilet was affected. The further report on 29 March 2023 advised that the push function to the small toilet was not working and that the flush to the main toilet in the bathroom was not working. An appointment was arranged for 18 April 2023. However, as mentioned above, the landlord’s contractor attended and left without carrying out any repairs. This will inevitably have caused distress and upset to the resident and her family.
Following a building surveyor visit, a repair was raised on 28 April 2023 to overhaul the toilets. The landlord’s records show that despite the replacement of a toilet mechanism in June 2023, the flush to 1 toilet remained defective. Residents should expect that once repairs are carried out, this will be lasting and effective. It is unreasonable that in November 2023, the resident made a further report that she was experiencing problems with an ineffective flush.
The toilet repairs were completed in February 2024, nearly a year after the resident’s initial reports. This was a significant delay the will have caused distress and inconvenience.

Mould to bathroom walls and ceiling

The mutual exchange form completed in December 2022 does not evidence damp or mould in the property. The landlord’s records show that the outgoing tenant reported the extractor fan was not working in January 2023 and it was repaired in February 2023.
The first report of mould was on 24 April 2023 when the building surveyor visited and recommended an urgent mould wash take place. This was reasonable and this was in line with this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould (October 2021) which recommends that landlords take a zero-tolerance response to such reports.
A representative for the resident contacted the landlord on 22 May 2023 to advise that its contractor had failed to attend the appointment to undertake the mould wash. This was not appropriate as the landlord is responsible for the actions of its contractors and has an obligation to promptly address any hazards within its properties.
Further, on 25 May 2023, there was a report of black mould in the bathroom and living room. The landlord responded by carrying out a mould wash on 30 June 2023 to the bathroom and living room walls and ceiling. The mould wash was completed within its non-emergency repair standard. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it acted appropriately on this occasion to address the mould reports.
Overall, the resident experienced delays and a missed appointment before the reported mould in the bathroom and living room was addressed. This would likely have caused concern and frustration to the resident and her family.

Report of defective kitchen tap

The landlord raised an non-emergency repair on 15 March 2023 following the resident’s report that on using the kitchen tap, she was unable to control the spray of water. The report does not say whether it was the hot or cold tap that had a missing aerator. Regardless, this will have caused inconvenience to the resident with the preparation of, and washing up after, meals.
There was a delay in the completion of these works as the repair took 33 working days before it was completed on 3 May 2023. This exceeded the landlord’s non-emergency repairs obligations.

Report that window keys were missing

The resident reported on 21 March 2023 that she did not have keys to lock the windows and this was necessary as she lived on the ground floor. She made a complaint the following day, repeating that she did not have any keys to lock the windows and that this was required for insurance purposes. The resident also advised that she was a survivor of domestic abuse so she had additional concerns about her safety.
The visit undertaken by the building surveyor in April 2023 does not record the keys to the window as a concern. Also, the window keys are not addressed in the landlord’s complaint response. This is not appropriate as the landlord should have ensured it addressed all points raised in the resident’s complaint, especially as the issue related to the resident’s safety and security.
The landlord’s records show that a carpenter attended on 6 April 2023 and a window repair was recorded as completed. The landlord’s records do not show what the carpenter found, what work was recommended or the action taken by the carpenter regarding the security of the windows. This is not reasonable as the landlord’s records should show the outcome of visits to its properties.
It is noted that the resident maintains that she does not have keys to lock the windows throughout the property. The landlord is reasonable for ensuring the property is secure. There is a lack of clarity around the locking mechanism for the windows and whether the resident still requires keys. It is unreasonable that the landlord has been unable to demonstrate how it responded to this important matter. An order is made about this later in the report.

Repair to the communal door

The resident reported on multiple times between March and April 2023 that the communal door was not working. She stated that the door handle was broken, did not close and that non-residents were entering the building to use drugs. The resident stated it was of particular importance as her property was located next to the communal door. It took 24 working days before the landlord’s contractor attended on 19 April 2023 to inspect the door. This was not reasonable as it did not reflect the urgency of the resident’s report. By the time of the initial visit, the repair timescale had already exceeded the repairs policy obligations.
Once the specialist contractor carried out the communal door inspection, it identified that a defective motor was responsible for the failure of the door. The part was ordered and it took a further 4 months (to August 2023) for the repair to be completed. This was not reasonable, particularly as there is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident to explain the extended timescale. The landlord has also not demonstrated that it considered or assessed whether extra security measures for the resident were required in the interim period given her concerns about anti-social behaviour and past experience of domestic abuse. This was a failing as had the landlord done so, this may have given reassurance to the resident.

Repair to the patio door handle

The landlord’s records show that the mutual exchange inspection identified in December 2022 that the handle to the patio door needed replacing. In January 2023, it was reported by the outgoing tenant that the patio door did not have a handle. The landlord’s records show that the correct handles for the door could not be located. Therefore, by the time the resident moved into the property the repair remained unaddressed.
The landlord is responsible for monitoring the progress of repairs. Therefore, it was unreasonable that the resident had to inform the landlord that she experienced 2 missed appointments on 10 March 2023 and 29 March 2023. The landlord misinformed the resident when it advised on 13 April 2023 that it was not responsible for replacing the patio door handle. This caused confusion and upset to the resident as the repair fell within its repairing obligations.
The building surveyor agreed on 24 April 2023 to the replacement of the patio door handle, noting the security risk as the property led to a public footpath. The repair was completed within 11 days of the visit. This was a reasonable timescale that reflected the urgency of the repair.

Summary

Overall, the landlord was responsible for unnecessary delays in completing a range of repairs in the months after the resident moved into the property. There was a lack of active repair management. The repairs fell within the landlord’s repairing obligations and should have been addressed within its non-emergency repair standard of 20 working days. Where repairs are taking longer than scheduled, landlords should make certain there is clear communication with the resident to manage expectations and check whether interim works are possible. The landlord did not do so.
After the mutual exchange took place, the resident was clearly dissatisfied with the property condition. The landlord has not demonstrated that it acted with urgency to address the resident’s concerns or monitored the commitments it made in its complaint responses. This resulted in excessive delays and missed appointments.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In its June 2023 final complaint response, the landlord recognised that the resident did not receive an appropriate level of service. For this, it made a compensation award totalling £700. The landlord explained that the redress was for its delay in completing the repairs and the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. It was reasonable that the landlord apologised, awarded compensation and said it would put things right by carrying out the outstanding repairs.
The landlord then wrote to the resident in February 2024, 8 months after the end of the complaints process, increasing the compensation award by a further £150 to £850. The landlord stated that the award included its previous award of £700 and that the repairs to the bathroom and communal door had been completed. The landlord acknowledged the difficulties experienced by the resident and that it had not completed its commitments in the agreed timescale.
The landlord went on to inform the resident of the steps it was taking to improve its service. It explained that repairs were no longer carried out by contractors and it was using resident feedback to improve. Although these steps were appropriate, the landlord’s increased compensation award did not go far enough to put things right.
The landlord should have taken reasonable steps to understand the impact on the resident and her family following the continued repairs delays. The landlord confirmed to this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. This is a concern as there was evidence of the resident informing it of health vulnerabilities during the complaint period. In addition, the resident’s support worker contacted the landlord to provide information about the impact that the delays were causing. An order has been made about this later in this report.
There were continued service failures beyond the period proposed in the June 2023 complaint response and the landlord did not use the complaints process effectively to fully put rights its failings. Given the range of repairs involved, the extensive delays (during and after the complaints process) and the likely impact of these, the landlord’s compensation award was insufficient and the Ombudsman has made a service failure finding.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint procedure says that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at its first stage and within 20 working days at its final stage.
The resident completed the online complaint form on 8 March 2023, 15 March 2023 and 21 March 2023 to report that she was unable to open the patio door to the living room, repairs were required to the kitchen taps, communal door, and both toilets and she did not have keys to lock the windows. It was reasonable for the landlord to treat these reports as service requests as this was the first time the resident had bought the matters to its attention.
The resident complained on 22 March 2023 that she was unable to use the bathroom due to the condition of the bath, toilet, taps and shower. Also, she was unable to secure the windows in the property. The landlord took 1 working day to acknowledge the complaint on 23 March 2023. This was appropriate and in line with its complaint policy.
The resident completed an online complaint form on 29 March 2023 to report that both toilets in the property were not functioning properly. It is noted that the resident had previously reported the defective flush to 1 toilet and made a new report regarding the defect to the second toilet. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to review the progress of the outstanding repair before it determined whether it would treat the report as a service request or include it as part of her complaint.
Around 6 working days later, the resident made another complaint on 30 March 2023 about the bathroom. She complained about the condition of the bath and bath taps and functioning of the kitchen tap. The following day, the resident made another complaint about the condition of the bathroom wall, advising that when she tried to paint it, the plaster had fallen off. It was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that it had merged the complaints and she would receive a single response as the matters complained about were similar and covered the same period.
The resident chased the complaint response on 24 April 2023 and on 3 May 2023, requesting that the landlord escalate the complaint to its final stage. It was reasonable that the landlord did not agree to the resident’s request. This is because it was aware that it had not yet issued its initial complaint response. Had the landlord agreed to the resident’s premature escalation request, this would have resulted in the resident missing an opportunity to challenge the landlord’s initial position on her complaint or seek further explanation as part of its internal complaint process.
The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 10 May 2023. This was 31 working days after the complaint. This was reasonable as the landlord recognised that it had exceeded its complaint policy target of responding within 10 working days. In its complaint review, the landlord made a compensation award of £100. This included £50 for its complaint handling failure. Given the delay period of around 4 weeks with the initial complaint response, the Ombudsman is of the view that this compensation was proportionate.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 24 May 2023 and the landlord provided its final complaint response on 19 June 2023. This response was offered within an appropriate timescale.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 February 2024, advising that it had reviewed the resident’s complaint and increased the compensation for its complaint handling failures. A specific award of £200 was made accordingly. The landlord explained that after the complaint process, the resident’s experience did not improve and agreed actions were not completed within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord gave further information about how it had learnt from the complaint, including staff training and the restructuring of the management of complaints. It was resolution-focused of the landlord to increase the compensation for its complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman has therefore found that there was sufficient redress offered by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling failure.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,000 compensation (including the £850 it offered in its letter dated 12 February 2024) for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings in its handling of repairs to her property.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord should contact the resident to:
1. Agree a mutually convenient appointment to inspect the windows.
2. Within 10 working days of that visit, the landlord should confirm the outcome of the inspection to the resident, confirming whether keys are required to lock the windows and, if necessary, giving the date when they will be provided. A copy is to be provided to this Service.
3. Obtain full information of any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for her household and update its systems accordingly.
The landlord is reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders in line with the above timescales.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £200 compensation it offered in February 2024 for its complaint handling failure. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress finding is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 6 weeks of the date of this determination to confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation.