Hyde Housing Association Limited (202305517)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305517

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 September 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 response to the resident’s request for a repair to:
    1. A leak.
    2. The boiler and associated pipework.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy started on 23 October 2000. The landlord has not confirmed whether the resident has any vulnerabilities. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
  2. The landlord’s out of hours repairs service attended the property on 11 October 2022 to resolve a leak from the tank in the airing cupboard. On 20 October the landlord raised a works order for a plumber to resolve a leak from the airing cupboard which had gone through the living room ceiling.  During the course of the repair it concluded that it needed to rerun the Pressure Relief Valve (PRV) discharge pipe. However, the resident was reluctant to proceed as she had requested a new combi boiler be installed.
  3. In December 2022 the boiler was condemned. This was because when the contractor attended to investigate the rerun of the pipes it identified a leak cause by a split in the fuel collector. The landlord attended on 20 December to repair the boiler however, its contractor said that the resident had declined the works. The repair to the boiler and reroute of the pipes was booked for 9 January 2023. When the contractor attended they repaired the boiler but did not reroute the pipe as some materials were missing. The contractor was due to attend again on 23 January however, when they did they said they had the wrong parts.
  4. On 24 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord that while using the heating she had detected a burning smell. The fire brigade attended and turned off her gas supply. On 30 January the resident asked the landlord to delay the repair works to the following week because she was unwell. An appointment was booked for the landlord to attend on 15 February however, the resident did not provide access. A new appointment was made for 20 February.
  5. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 25 November 2022, as follows:
    1. She was upset about the landlord’s response to the leak. The resident was told it needed fixing “as soon as possible” but when the contractor attended they said there was no leak. Weeks later her ceiling came through and her electrics were disabled.
    2. She was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s suggestion to reroute the pipework all around her ceilings and floors” and wanted to discuss it further.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 3 January 2023, the main points being:
    1. It agreed it could have done the repairs more quickly. It partially upheld the complaint and apologised for the resident’s “frustration and poor experience.”
    2. It offered £250 compensation comprised of:
      1. £50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint.
      2. £100 for the delays completing repairs up to November 2022.
      3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
    3. It would contact the resident to arrange a date to carry out the repair to the ceiling, light fitting and wall.
    4. The ceiling was damaged following a leak in February 2022. It responded initially but failed to follow up by fixing the damaged caused.
    5. Since November 2022 it had made attempts to reroute pipework as needed however, the resident did not agree with its approach and had declined works.
    6. It had arranged for a second contractor to attend who confirmed it was the only option for that pipe. Its contractor was attending to repair the faulty part on the boiler and reroute the pipework on 9 January. They would also repair the boiler that had been shut off.
    7. When the second contractor inspected the boiler it carried out a ‘sweep test’ which revealed high carbon monoxide levels. A warning notice was issued and the boiler labelled. The report from the contractor also confirmed the boiler was repairable.
    8. It acknowledged that the resident had taken time and trouble to chase a response.
    9. It acknowledged its complaint response was not in line with its complaints policy which it had considered in its compensation.
    10. It recognised that there were areas of improvement in the way it communicated effectively with residents, particularly around repairs. It said the complaint would be reviewed by the relevant contract managers and senior managers. This would highlight the importance of managing expectations and offering reassurance to residents throughout the repairs process. It said it would learn from the complaint to enhance the service that it provided.
  7. On 10 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that when it attended on 9 January it did not reroute the pipework. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 January to confirm her complaint had been escalated to stage 2.
  8. On 16 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
    1. It did not complete the repair when it should. It apologised it “took so long” and it “understood why you felt so let down.”
    2. It increased the compensation offered at stage 1 from £250 to £450, comprised of:
      1. £50 for the complaint handling failures.
      2. £200 for the delays in service delivery.
      3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience.
    3. Following contact from this Service it confirmed that it:
      1. Would arrange reimbursement of costs and asked the resident to provide utility bills for December 2022 to April 2023. As long as they were based on accurate meter readings it would calculate if usage had increased due to the resident using electrical heaters during times she had no heating or hot water.
      2. Was working with its contractor to arrange the remaining repairs to boiler.
      3. Had referred the resident to its Hyde foundation to see what support it could offer with regards to her mental health.
    4. There had been further failures with regards to the ceiling repairs because it did not do what it said it would. It said this was being progressed following the escalation of the resident’s complaint but that it should have moved forward “much quicker.”
  9. On 7 September 2023 the resident wrote to this Service to set out her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She said the boiler was still not fixed which was affecting her mental health. She said she was unable to cope with the way she was treated by the landlord and felt she had no choice but to escalate her complaint to us. She said she felt like a “victim.”

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure says that:
    1. Upon receipt of a works order for an emergency repair the contractor must attend the property within 4 hours and complete a ‘make safe’ repair within 24 hours.
    2. When an emergency repair has been made safe, any subsequent follow on work will be raised as an ‘anytime repair.’ An appointment will be arranged within the response time for anytime repairs of 20 working days.
    3. An emergency repair can include loss of gas, water, electric or heating.
  2. Its complaints procedure in place at the time of the complaint states that it will:
    1. Acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
    2. Respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Any complaints open for more than 10 working days must be extended in agreement with the resident. A clear explanation for the extension must be provided.
    3. Respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This stage is a review which should respond to the resident’s reasons for requesting an escalation.
  3. Its complaints procedure guidance says that if a disrepair complaint is issued it will investigate the complaint up to the point in which the pre-action protocol has been issued.
  4. Its compensation procedure guidance sets out that it will consider discretionary compensation for delay and distress and time and trouble.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The evidence provided for this investigation shows that on 24 January 2023 the resident experienced further issues with her boiler. In an email to the landlord of 10 January the landlord’s contractor confirmed the boiler was in working order. There is no evidence to suggest that the new issue was linked to the previous problem. This is consistent with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 16 June which did not provide a response on this new issue.
  2. In accordance with the approach set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, the landlord’s response to this new issue has not been assessed by this investigation.

Leak

  1. The repair logs note that on 11 October 2022 the landlord’s out of hours team attended a leak in the airing cupboard. The logs note that the resident had had “multiple engineers” out to investigate the issue. There are no notes on the repairs log relating to these earlier visits which is a record keeping failure.
  2. The repairs logs show that a works order was raised on 20 October 2022 for a plumber to attend for a recurring “uncontrollable” leak in the airing cupboard. The leak had gone through the living room ceiling and the record noted that the resident had been having issues “for months.” Issues with the expansion valve and tundish were identified as the cause of the leak.
  3. The landlord’s records show that it attended the leak on 11 October and on occasions prior to that for a considerable length of time. Its failure to resolve the leak caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident because it worsened to the point where it came through the ceiling. Furthermore, it failed to adhere to its repairs procedure to resolve anytime repairs within 20 working days.
  4. On 25 October 2022 the landlord raised a works order to make safe the lounge pendant noting that once the leak had dried out a new pendant would be required. This was 5 days after the leak was reported as coming through the ceiling. This was inappropriate because, given the risk of water interfering with the electrics, it would have been appropriate on an emergency basis. Its repairs policy says that emergency repairs be made safe within 24 hours. It therefore failed to adhere to its repairs procedure and failed to consider risk of harm to the resident.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 3 January 2023 said it should have provided a more timely response to the repairs. It acknowledged that although it responded to the initial problem it failed to follow up with remedial repairs. It said it would contact the resident to arrange the works.
  6. It apologised and acknowledged the detriment caused to the resident. It offered £200 compensation comprised of £100 for the delays completing the repairs up to November 2022 and £100 for distress and inconvenience.
  7. An order was raised on 17 January 2023 to replace the lounge ceiling pendant and to fill the hole in the lounge ceiling and patch repair. However, the repairs log says this order was cancelled because a live disrepair was raised. There are no further notes relating to this repair on the repair logs which is a record keeping failure.
  8. The absence of any further records means it is unclear when the works were resolved. However, by the time of the stage 1 complaint response of 3 January 2023 over 2 months had passed since the leak occurred. Therefore, the landlord failed to adhere to its repairs procedure to carry out anytime repairs within 20 working days which was inappropriate.
  9. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that an effective complaint handling process provides an opportunity to resolve an issue before it becomes worse. The landlord failed to contact the resident to arrange the remedial works as set out in its stage 1 complaint response. This was inappropriate because instead of using the complaints process to expedite resolution of the substantive issue, it gave the resident further cause for complaint.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 16 June 2023 appropriately acknowledged its failure. It said that although the matter was now in hand it should have moved forward “much quicker.” There is no evidence to show what steps it took to carry out the works at that time and/or when the works were finally resolved. This is an ongoing record keeping failure.
  11. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord increased the compensation from £200 to £400 comprised of £200 for the delays in service delivery and £200 for distress and inconvenience.  It is unclear how much was apportioned to the issues with remedial works following the leak and how much to the issues with the boiler and pipework.
  12. The main focus of the landlord’s response was on the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction about its response to works to the boiler which remained outstanding after stage 1 of the process. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the compensation was offered in relation to that, rather than ongoing failure with the remedial works.
  13. The Code says that landlords should keep an open mind when investigating complaints. The landlord failed to use the complaints process to consider its response to the leak at the outset. It failed to review its actions to determine whether its failure to resolve the leak at the earliest stage had contributed to the more serious leak which had penetrated the ceiling.
  14. The failures identified in this report include:
    1. Record keeping failures.
    2. Failure to resolve the leak and make safe the electrics in line with its repairs procedure.
    3. Failure to complete the remedial works in line with its repairs procedure and as set out in its stage 1 complaint response.
  15. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The £200 compensation offered by the landlord is not proportionate to the failures identified by this investigation. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £450 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £200 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Boiler and pipework

  1. An internal email dated 1 November 2022 states that during the landlord’s investigation into the leak it discovered that the PRV discharge pipe ran in the ceiling in overflow and was attached to the copper pipe via compression coupling. It concluded that the discharge pipe needed to be rerouted.
  2. On 25 November 2022 the landlord’s contractor sent an internal email to advise that the resident had declined works to reroute the pipe. A further exchange of emails confirmed that the resident had a hot water supply. It is unclear whether the resident’s heating was affected.
  3. On 28 November 2022 the landlord emailed an alternative contractor to request that they attend. They were asked to provide advice on the pipework and confirm if the route proposed by the first contractor was the only or best option. The landlord demonstrated that it had considered the resident’s concerns. It appropriately sought a second opinion to ensure that the proposed solution was the only one available before proceeding any further.
  4. Ongoing email exchanges show that an appointment was made for 8 December 2022. On 9 December the second contractor provided its report to the landlord. It advised that during its inspection it had identified a leak from the fuel collector behind the main heat exchanger in the boiler. It therefore placed a warning notice on the boiler and shut off the gas supply.
  5. On 12 December 2022 the landlord emailed the contractor to request that it attend to install a new discharge pipe including other alterations to the pipework as required. It was asked to rectify issues with the boiler and reinstate the gas supply once works were completed. The contractor’s email to the landlord of 13 December confirmed it had booked an appointment with the resident for 16 December.
  6. This was 8 days after the boiler was shut down and the gas supply turned off. There was no evidence that the landlord checked to ensure that the resident had hot water and/or heating via other means. This would have been appropriate in order to determine whether it needed to raise an appointment to attend as an emergency, in line with its repairs procedure. 
  7. An internal email dated 16 December 2022 referred to a telephone call from the resident to say the engineer had arrived but had said it was a 2 man job. She asked the landlord to provide an update. A further internal email advised that the report regarding the boiler fault was not correct and therefore the correct parts had not been ordered. It said it could re attend on Monday 19 December. It is unclear when the landlord contacted the resident to relay this information which is a record keeping failure.
  8. The landlord emailed the contractor on 19 December 2022 to check that they would attend that day. Given that 11 days had passed since the gas supply with disconnected it was appropriate that the landlord proactively checked that the contractor would attend.
  9. However, the contractor replied to say the part would not be delivered until the following day and that it had notified the resident to say it would attend then. It said it would repair the boiler to ensure the resident had heating and hot water and would return in the new year to reroute the pipe.
  10. The contractor attended the following day, 20 December 2022. However it emailed the landlord on the same day to report that the resident had declined the works because a part was dirty. It said she had also requested a new boiler. The landlord asked for confirmation of the appointment to reroute the pipe. The contractor replied to say it would be in the new year.
  11. An internal email of 21 December 2022 noted that the resident called the landlord that day to express her dissatisfaction that it had left her without heating or hot water. It said it had advised the resident that she had declined works which is why they had not been carried out. An internal email dated 30 December refers to a call from the resident where she said the contractors had not been truthful. She said it was the contractor who said she needed a new boiler and denied stopping works going ahead.
  12. The resident disputed the landlord’s account of events. There is no independent evidence supporting either account meaning this investigation cannot make a determination on this point.
  13. Regardless, by 20 December 2022 the resident’s gas supply had been shut off for 12 days. The resident sought the support of her MP who emailed the landlord on 3 January 2023 to say the resident had been without heating or hot water throughout Christmas. There is no evidence that the landlord satisfied itself that the resident had heating and/or hot water during that time which was inappropriate, particularly given the time of year.
  14. In a further email dated 21 December 2022 the contractor confirmed that an appointment had been made for 9 January 2023 to carry out the repair and reroute the pipe. On 9 January the contractor attended to repair the boiler. In the contractor’s email to the landlord of 10 January 2023 it confirmed that the resident had heating and hot water.
  15. However, it did not reroute the pipe on 9 January 2023 because materials were missing from the order. This was the second time the landlord had attended but been unable to carry out works due to missing or wrong parts. This caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident who had to facilitate a third appointment for works to take place.
  16. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 3 January 2023 said that it recognised it needed to improve its communication with residents, particularly around repairs. It said the complaint would be reviewed however, there is no evidence that this was actioned. There is no evidence that the landlord identified what had gone wrong and what it would do differently. Therefore, it failed to demonstrate learning from the complaint which was inappropriate.
  17. An internal email dated 3 February 2023 confirmed that the contractor could attend on 15 February to reroute the pipe. However, an internal email dated 16 February noted that the resident had not provided access. A further internal email, also dated 16 February, referred to the resident instructing solicitors regarding a disrepair claim. It said the landlord was corresponding with the solicitors.
  18. An internal email dated 4 April 2023 confirmed that the landlord had contacted the resident to discuss rerouting the pipe. The resident was happy to proceed and the parts were being ordered. Detailed records relating to the disrepair claim have not been provided to this Service therefore it is unclear when the works to reroute the pipework was completed. This is a further record keeping failure.
  19. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 16 June 2023 agreed it did not complete the repair when it should. It apologised and said it understood why the resident felt “so let down.” It offered an additional £200 comprised of £100 for the delays and £100 for the distress and inconvenience. There is no evidence that the resident provided any evidence to the landlord regarding her utility bills.
  20. While it was positive that the landlord considered how it could put things right for the resident, its response failed to set out what specifically had gone wrong and what it would do differently which was a failure. Therefore it missed the opportunity to demonstrate its learning, including an acknowledgement of the impact on the resident.
  21. The failures identified include:
    1. Record keeping failures.
    2. A failure by contractors to provide an accurate report and to attend with the correct parts.
    3. Failure to consider the impact on the resident including whether she had an alternative means of heating and/or hot water.
  22. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The £200 compensation offered by the landlord is not proportionate to the failures identified by this investigation. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £200 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 25 November 2022. The landlord failed to adhere to its complaints policy because it did not acknowledge the complaint until 6 December. This was 7 working days after the complaint was received and 2 days out of time. The landlord issued its response on 3 January 2023 which was 24 working days later and 14 working days over target.
  2. The landlord appropriately wrote to the resident on 20 December 2022 to advise it would not be able to respond within time. However, this was a notification of a delay and there is no evidence that the extension was agreed with the resident in line with its complaints policy.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord appropriately apologised for the delays and offered the resident £50 compensation.
  4. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 10 January 2023. The landlord issued its response on 10 June 2023, which was 105 working days later, far exceeding its timescales.
  5. On 11 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that her complaint had been escalated to stage 2. However, on 19 April the landlord emailed the resident’s MP and advised that the complaint had come to an end because the resident was pursuing a disrepair claim. It confirmed its stage 1 complaint response of 6 December was its final response and that if the resident remained dissatisfied she could contact this Service.
  6. In November 2021 the Housing Ombudsman issued new guidance for landlords on disrepair claims and the complaints process. It confirmed that when a landlord receives correspondence initiating the pre-action protocol for housing condition claims, it should not disengage from any open complaint or the repair issue itself. 
  7. Commencing the protocol does not constitute legal proceedings and a complaint can be considered at any stage of the protocol. Closing the complaints process once the protocol commences is a missed opportunity to use the complaints process to its fullest potential. Effective complaint handing is preferable to increasing disrepair claims, which may take longer or leave the issue unresolved.
  8. This means the complaints policy in place at the time of the complaint was inappropriate. Therefore, given that a disrepair claim had not been issued by the court its decision to close the complaint was inappropriate. The complaints policy statement (June 2024) published on the landlord’s website has removed reference to disrepair claims at the pre-action protocol stage. Therefore, it has not been necessary make an order on this matter.
  9. The landlord’s failure caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she contacted this Service for support on 15 May 2023. On 25 May we wrote to the landlord to ask that it provide a complaint response by 16 June which it did, providing it on 16 June.
  10. The Code requires complaint handlers to consider all information and evidence carefully. It is acknowledged that the landlord was open about its failures however, there was a lack of detail in its complaint responses regarding the substantive issues. The record keeping failures set out above were reflected in its complaint responses. This was because it did not demonstrate that the landlord had considered all the elements of the complaint in appropriate detail.
  11. There were delays at stage 1 of the complaints process. The stage 2 complaint was closed prematurely and the landlord’s response was only issued following intervention from this Service. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failures, provide redress for the resident or set out its learning in terms of what had gone wrong.
  12. The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. This is because there were failures which adversely affected the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation. It may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Special investigation

  1. This Service has not made any orders for the landlord to carry out wider learning from this case or to review its processes. This is because the landlord is currently the subject of an Ombudsman special investigation. Special investigations are conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme to determine whether there is evidence of systemic or wider failings by the landlord. The failings identified in this complaint will be considered as part of the special investigation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to her boiler and associated pipework.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £1150 compensation comprised of:
      1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s request for a repair to a leak. The landlord may deduct the £200 it has offered if this has already been paid.
      2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to residents request to repair the boiler and associated pipework. The landlord may deduct the £200 it has offered if this has already been paid.
      3. £200 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.
    2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.