Hyde Housing Association Limited (202301819)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301819

Hyde Housing Association Limited

16 May 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of:
1. Banging noises from the water pipes in her building.
2. Repairs to her kitchen window.
This complaint is also about the landord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 25 April 2022. The property is a 2 bedroom flat with a communal garden. The landlord has no vulnerabilities listed for the resident.
On 3 May 2022, the resident reported that her kitchen window would not close fully and the handle was faulty. The resident also reported a loud banging when turning off her wash hand basin and bath taps. The landlord noted that this was possibly an airlock.
On 8 August 2022, the logged a formal complaint from the resident. The landlord noted that the resident said that the airlock was causing ‘horrendous noise’ especially at night once the bath taps in the building were being turned on and she could hear the noise coming directly from the flat above her. She reported this to a contractor who attended her property on 4 July 2022 who said they would report this issue back to the landlord. The resident said she had heard nothing since, no one was taking her concerns seriously and that something needed to be done about this. The landlord also noted that the resident had concerns about a repair to the communal entrance door. Whilst the landlord referred to this repair in its stage 1 response, this matter does not form part of the complaint bought to this Service and therefore will not be considered any further here.
On 23 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint about the airlock. The landlord also said that the resident’s concerns about the kitchen window would not be including as this was the first report it had received about this issue.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 September 2022. The landlord said that its response was to the resident’s complaint about the airlock in her heating system and her lack of privacy due to a window to the communal area. The landlord:
1. Said that it had arranged for an appointment on 6 September 2022 to investigation the potential airlock in the resident’s heating system.
2. Said that it was clear that it should have completed the repairs much sooner and as such it upheld the resident’s complaint.
3. Offered her £200 compensation, made up of
  1. £50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint.
  2. £100 for the delays completing the repairs.
  3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
4. Said that if any follow-on works were needed following the appointment on 6 September 2022 it would work towards the next steps in the repair within a reasonable time frame, update the resident when the works have been completed to ensure that there were no following works to be completed.
5. Said that its complaints manager would be overseeing the complaint commitments set out above to make sure that everything was completed for the resident, and that they would now act as the resident’s point of contact until this has been done.
On 12 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint. In her escalation request the resident said:
1. The airlock was ‘‘now worse’’ despite the plumbing engineer attending on 6 September 2022 and fixing what he thought was the problem.
2. She had tried to speak to the landlord’s contractor but had not been able to.
3. The resident said that this had caused her additional stress, an increase in her blood pressure and that she had had taken time of work due to a lack of sleep.
4. That whilst she accepted the £200 offered at stage 1, the outstanding repairs needed to be looked at as soon as possible.
On 16 March 2023, the resident emailed the landlord saying that she had not heard anything from it about her complaint following her escalation request. The resident also said that the problem with the airlocks had not been resolved and her kitchen window was still not repaired.
On 14 April 2023, the resident contact this Service to advise that she had not had a response from the landlord to her escalation request of 13 September 2022. This Service wrote to the landlord, but this was not until 10 July 2023, and after the landlord issued its final response on 5 July 2023.
The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint on 5 July 2023, in which it acknowledged that it did not complete the repairs to the water hammer or the kitchen window as it should have. It also acknowledged that it did not communicate with the resident nor provide her with any reassurance as to how it was going to rectify these issues. The landlord also:
1. Increased the level of compensation offered from £150 to £400, made up of:
  1. £100 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaints process.
  2. £150 for the delays completing the repairs.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
2. Said that, with regards to the water hammer, its contactors last attended in February 2023 to carry out a CCTV survey, following which there was a delay in raising follow on works. The landlord said that an appointment had been booked for these to take place on 27 July 2023.
3. Said, with regards to the kitchen window, the delay was caused because an order was raised but was recorded as completed in error. The landlord said that a new order had been raised and that its contractors were due to attend on 27 July 2023. If its contractors were able to move this appointment forward, they would be in touch with the resident to advise.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what, if anything, the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.

Scope

In the period between the landlord’s stage 1 response, of 5 September 2022, and its final response to complaint considered in this report, dated,5 July 2023, the resident reported a number of concerns to this service. These included the landlord’s response her reports of damage to her letter box, which she said was broken into by the son of a neighbour, a mice infestation in her property and ASB from the flat above.
Following contact by this Service on 10 July 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that if she was having issues with mice within her home this would need to be logged as a new complaint. The landlord also advised that if the resident was not happy with how her ASB concerns were being dealt with, this too would need to be logged as a new complaint. No reference was made to the damaged letter box, although it is acknowledged that this may have formed part of the resident’s ASB complaint.
This Service has seen evidence that the resident raised a complaint about the mice on 14 August 2023. The resident also has a complaint with the landlord about its response to her reports of ASB which this Service is assisting the resident with under a separate complaint reference.
As neither of these complaints have exhausted the landlord formal complaints process, they will not be considered further in this report. This is because Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which ‘are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure. Were the resident to remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response once these issues have been through the landlord’s complaints process, she may then bring these to this Service for consideration.

Relevant legislation, policies, and agreements.

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair, including the windowsills, window catches, sash cords and window frames. The landlord must also keep in proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water. These obligations are also confirmed in Sections 4(b)(1 and 3) of the tenancy terms and conditions.
The landlord’s repairs policy has 3 categories of repair:
1. Emergency, which is described as any repair that is required to sustain the immediate health, safety, or security of the resident. The policy states that the landlord will attend within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours.
2. Anytime, which is described as any repair not classed as an emergency. Anytime repairs are dealt with within 20 working days.
3. Major repairs are dealt with as part of the landlord’s stock investment procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of banging noises from the water

pipes in her building.

The first report of a ‘’loud’’ banging noise when turning her wash hand basin and bath taps off was reported by the resident on 3 May 2022, just over a week after moving into her property. The landlord acknowledged at that time that this may be an airlock.
Given that this would not be considered an emergency repair, the landlord would initially be expected to address the repair within 20 working days, by 31 May 2022, in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy for ‘Anytime’ repairs. The landlord failed to do so.
In her initial complaint of 8 August 2022, the resident referred to a contractor attending her property on 4 July 2022. However the evidence provided by the landlord includes no records for this appointment.
It is noted that even if the contractor had attended with regards to the banging from the water pipes, their attendance on 4 July 2022, would have been more than 1 month after the 20 working day deadline. It is also noted that there is no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with an explanation for this delay.
The first record seen by this Service of the landlord arranging an appointment was on 1 September 2022, where it was noted that an appointment had been arranged for 6 September 2022. This record states that an appointment was attended on 25 May 2022, but again this Service has been provided with no evidence of this earlier appointment.
The appointment for 6 September 2022 was also not arranged until after the resident raised a formal complaint on 23 August 2022 and more than 4 months after she had initially this issue to the landlord. This was an excessive and unreasonable delay that would have understandably caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The appointment on 6 September 2022 went ahead and the plumber that attended reported that they had refixed the fitting and seal going into stack pipe. They also tested for leaks from the bath and wash hand basin, none were found. The resident contacted the landlord the following day to say that she was ‘‘really hoping’’ the appointment the previous day had resolved the ‘‘horrible banging sound’’ which had been affecting her from the day she moved in. Unfortunately, the issue had not been resolved.
When it became evident that the issue was not going to be a straightforward repair, it was reasonable that it might take some time for the landlord to identify and resolve the issue. However, by the time of the landlord’s final response on 5 July 2023, over a year later, the landlord had not found a resolution to this issue. The evidence also suggests the issue had still not been resolved by March 2024, almost 2 years after it had been initially reported by the resident.
A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the issue is complex, as it appears to have been in this case. However, in-line with general customer service standards, the landlord would be expected to proactively manage the repair and complete it as soon as practically possible. It would also be expected to update the resident and manage their expectations.
On 12 September 2022, the landlord raised another job regarding the airlock and a plumber attended on 20 September 2022. The landlord noted that the plumber reported water hammer, and that they had removed the bath panel. The plumber also reported that the bath would need to be taken out to gain access to fix the pipework that ‘tees off’ to the bath and basin waste. A further appointment was raised for 30 September 2022, however, no records of whether this appointment took place or what the outcome was has been seen by this Service.
On 3 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that the works carried out had again not been effective. A further appointment was booked with the resident for 13 October 2022. The landlord also raised an appointment with the upstairs flat on 12 October 2022, for which the landlord later noted there was no access. Again, the landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence of what happened at the appointment or what actions, if any, it intended to take as a result. On 15 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that she was still having issues with the banging.
On 2 November 2022, the landlord held a meeting to discuss the issues the resident had been reporting regarding the airlock/water hammer. Given that this issue had been outstanding for over 6 months, this was an appropriate step for the landlord to take and evidences that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and seeking to find a resolution.
At the meeting, the landlord noted that it was agreed that its contractor would need to look into the plumbing at all the affected property that were using the same pipework. Appointments were made with the resident and the flat above for 8 November 2022 and 2 other flats in the building on 18 November 2022. However, the evidence provided suggests that this did not take place until 25 January 2023, over 2 months later, when the resident’s and a neighbouring flat were checked for banging sounds. The noise was heard in both properties and diagnosed as a possible blockage in the pipework.
The landlord then raised an order for its contractor to take out the bath. This was to gain access to fix the pipework to the bath and basin waste, and to remedy the water hammer/banging pipework. The contractor attended and found that the pipework was not fitting properly so they moved its position so that it fitted tight. The contractor said that they confirmed with the resident that the knocking sound had stopped, noting however that the resident said that it usually happened at nighttime.
By 16 March 2023, the resident again emailed the landlord to say that she had not heard anything further from it regarding the airlocks. The resident said that she was ‘‘at a lost’’ as to why there had been no communication from the landlord, despite her having called its customer service team who advised that they would pass on her concerns. Despite the concerns raised by the resident, this Service has seen no evidence of any further communication with the resident by the landlord regarding her concerns until its final response of 5 July 2023, almost 4 months later.
In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it did not complete the repairs to the water hammer as it should have. It also acknowledged that it did not communicate with the resident nor provide her with any reassurance as to how it was going to rectify this issue. To make this right, the landlord said that an appointment had been booked for follow on works, from the CCTV survey in February 2023, to take place on 27 July 2023. The landlord also offered the resident £300 compensation, made up of £150 for the delays completing the repairs and £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
When landlords make offers to carry out works on its final response, it would be expected to complete those works within a reasonable period of time, and to evidence to this Service that it had taken some learning from any identified failures. However, it has failed to evidence that it did either. This is because:
1. This Service has seen no evidence of the works being attended to on 27 July 2023 as agreed in the final response.
2. There is evidence of the landlord raising a job for ‘water hammer arresting works’ for the resident flat and all other flats on the same riser. However this was not raised until 18 October 2023, almost 3 months later. The landlord noted that this job was completed on 13 November 2023. However, no details of what works, if any, were carried out at that time have been seen by this Service.
3. The landlord’s records also note that it attended on 14 December 2023, but the resident refused access. However, these records are again limited. The resident also refuted the landlord’s position and forwarded an email that she had received from the plumber that had attended her property on 14 December 2023, which the resident said confirmed that she did not fail to give access.
4. The landlord’s position regarding the CCTV survey also remains somewhat confusing. In its final response the landlord said that it had attended in February 2023 to carry out a CCTV survey, following which there was a delay in raising follow on works. However, no evidence has been provided regarding that CCTV survey. It is also unclear why:
  1. If a survey had been carried out in February 2023, and works recommended, why the landlord then raised a job on 24 November 2023, 9 months later, for a further CCTV inspection, which was then cancelled.
  2. In emails seen by this Service, the landlord’s contractor told the landlord on 19 March 2024 that it had no access for a CCTV survey on 15 December 2023, a date not seen in the landlord’s records provided to this Service.
It is vital for a landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives, and its actions in response. This will enable it to effectively manage any issues raised by its resident’s as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. It cannot properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records, and this could result in unfairness to the resident. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with adequate information to enable us to fully investigate matters referred to us and it has failed to do so in this case.
It is evident that the landlord did arrange for operatives to attend, considered whether the issue may be more widespread than just the resident’s flat and met to discuss the case. However, it failed to proactively manage the repair which resulted in excessive delays in making any progress and, at times, only took action when prompted to do so by the resident.
The £300 compensation offered was also not proportionate to the level of failing in this case. This is because Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online, provides for awards of £600 to £1,000 for instances of failure which had a significant impact on the resident over a prolonged period of time, which the landlord did not fully address or put right, but which did not have a permanent effect on the resident.
Given the excessive length of time the resident has had to wait and the landlord’s failure to proactively manage this issue, its failure to evidence that it carried out the works agreed in its final response in a timely manner, its poor record keeping and its failure to provide the resident with a proportionate level of compensation, a finding of maladministration has been made. .
To make this right the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident a further £500 compensation bringing the total payable for this element of the resident’s complaint to £800.
The landlord has also been ordered to carry out a review of this case and the current situation with regards to the water hammer at the resident’s property. If the issue has not been resolved, the landlord is to put together a plan of action, with timescales, as to how it intends to resolve this issue which it is to agree with the resident and then share with this Service.
It should be noted that as the £300 offered by the landlord was insufficient to cover the landlord’s failures with regards to the water hammer alone, any further compensation ordered by this Service with regards to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of repairs to her kitchen window repair will be made in addition to the amount awarded here.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to her kitchen window.

On 3 May 2022, and just over a week after moving into her property, the resident reported that her kitchen window would not close property and that the handle was faulty.
On 23 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on regarding the airlock but said that the resident’s concerns about the window would not be including this as this was the first report it had received about this issue. This was clearly not the case; the resident having reported the repair to her kitchen window over 3 months earlier. The landlord also referred to this complaint being about a window ‘to the communal area.’ However, there is no evidence in the records provided by the landlord of the resident raising any concerns about this matter.
The landlord logged a repair to the resident’s kitchen window on 12 September 2022 stating that the rubber seal to the window was letting a draught in. Over a month later, on 31 October 2022, the landlord raised a job to overhaul UPVC window, make good and test. The repair records noted that 2 hinges were needed and, as the kitchen window was over a sink, it would need scaffold from outside for these to be fitted.
The repair records state that this job was completed on 9 November 2022. However, in March 2023, 4 months later, the resident emailed the landlord saying that the disrepair to the window had still not been resolved, made her property cold and that she could not afford heating that just went out of the window. The resident said that she was ‘‘at a lost’’ as to why there had been no communication from the landlord, despite her having called its customer service team who advised that they would pass on her concerns. The resident asked that someone contact her regarding when the outstanding repairs would be resolved.
Later landlord’s records also indicate that the repair was not completed on 9 November 2022 and it final response the landlord stated that its contractors were due to attend on 27 July 2023.
The landlord’s repair records note that the repairs to the window were completed on 27 July 2023. However:
1. In an email to this Service, her MP and the landlord on 1 August 2023, the resident said that on 20 July 2023 a carpenter came to fix the window but said that he was unable to do so at that time and that he would be back in 2-3 weeks.
2. On 3 August 2023, the landlord emailed its contractor as the resident had advised that her window repair was still unresolved. The contractor was asked to look into the matter urgently, the landlord saying that it had already chased for an update 6 days previously but had had no response.
3. The landlord’s repair records note that the repair to the kitchen window was eventually completed on 11 August 2023, by which time the resident had waiting some 15months for the issue to be resolved. The resident has also started to report mice in her property, which she said were able to come through her kitchen window because it had not been fixed.
As with its response to the resident’s reports of banging noises from her water pipes, the landlord failed to proactively manage the repair to the resident’s kitchen window, there was an excessive delay in it completing the repair and its record keeping was poor. There is also evidence that it again only took action when prompted to do so by the resident.
These failures amount to maladministration by the landlord for which it has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay her an additional £500.

The handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy, which states that it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and then aim to provide its response within the following timescales:
1. Stage 1 response following formal acknowledgement – 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 review following receipt of request – 20 working days.
The resident raised her initial formal complaint on 8 August 2022. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days, no later than 15 August 2022. It should then have provided its stage 1 response within a further 10 working days, no later than 29 August 2022.
However, it did not acknowledge the complaint until 23 August 2022, more than a week outside of the timescales given in its complaints policy. It also did not then issue its stage 1 response until 5 September 2022. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged its delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint, for which it offered £50 compensation. This was included in the overall offer of £400 made to the resident, which was previously noted as being insufficient to cover the landlord’s failures with regards to the water hammer alone.
The resident escalated her complaint on 12 September 2022. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 20 working days, no later than 10 October 2022. However, it did not do so until 5 July 2023, some 9 months outside of the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
Further, in its stage 1 response, the landlord referred to the appointment made for 6 September 2022 being with regards to her heating system when this was evidently not the case, the landlord’s own gas team having said on 23 August 2022 that it had spoken to the resident and confirmed that there was no issue with her heating. This confusion and lack of clarity about what the repair was actually for, when the resident had already waited over 4 months for the landlord to address the issue, would understandably have added to the resident’s concerns about how it was handling her concerns.
The evidence provided by the landlord of the complaint made by the resident does not include any element regarding her window, nor does the resident’s escalation request of 12 September 2022. However:
1. In its acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint the landlord did refer to a window, which it said it would not include as it was the first time that this had been reported.
2. The stage 1 response also referenced the issue with the window being a lack of privacy, rather than disrepair.
3. The landlord went on to respond to the repair to the kitchen window in its stage 2 and final response.
In its final response the landlord offered the resident £100 for her patience throughout the complaints process, this being increased from the £50 offered in stage 1. However, given the delays in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint, the delay in it providing its response, which in the case of its final response was excessive and the confusion and lack of clarity in its responses, it is the view of this Service that this amount was not proportionate to the level of failings in this case. As such finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident an additional £100, being the total compensation for its complaint handling failures to £200 compensation. It has also been ordered to review its complaint handling in this case and confirm to this Service what steps it has, or intends to, take to ensure that similar failures do not occur again going forward.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of banging noises from the water pipes in her building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her kitchen window.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,500 compensation made up of:
  1. £800 for its failures in respect of its handling of her reports of banging noises from the water pipes in her property. This is inclusive of the £300 compensation offered in the landlord’s final response if this has not already been paid.
  2. An additional £500 for its failures with regards to its response to her reports of repair to her kitchen window.
  3. A further £200 for its complaint handling failures, this is inclusive of the £100 offered in the landlord’s final response, if this has not already been paid.
3. Carry out a review of this case and the current situation with regards to the water hammer at the resident’s property. If the issue has not been resolved, the landlord is to put together a plan of action, with timescales, as to how it intends to resolve this issue which it is to agree with the resident and then share with this Service.
4. Review its complaint handling in this case and confirm to this Service what steps it has, or intends to, take to ensure that similar failures do not occur again going forward.
5. Confirm compliance with these orders.