Hyde Housing Association Limited (202305858)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305858

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 enquiry about insurance and repair costs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident was a leaseholder. The property is a ground floor flat. It is located within a building comprising 5flats. The landlord owns the freehold title to the building. The resident bought the property in 2005. Initially this was through shared ownership but she subsequently staircased to 100%.
  2. On 23 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report storm damage to the roof. She asked the landlord to make a buildings insurance claim and repair it. The resident then contacted the buildings insurer directly to discuss the matter. The insurer advised her that the landlord was required to submit the claim. It said that the claim would be subject to a £10,000 excess as the building was insured under a mixed tenure policy for tenants and leaseholders.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 November 2022. She outlined her concern that the building was insured under a mixed policy for leaseholders and tenants. She said this was incorrect as all the residents in the building were leaseholders. She explained that as per her discussion with the insurer, the incorrect cover meant that the excess for claims was £10,000. She said that the cover should be for leaseholders and shared owners, and should not include tenants. The excess for this type of cover was only £100.
  4. The landlord did not respond. The resident sent a follow up email on 9 December 2022. She asked it to “confirm as a matter of urgency” that the insurance would be changed over to leaseholder cover and not include tenants. It did not respond.
  5. On 3 January 2023, the resident formally complained that the landlord had not responded to her enquiry regarding the buildings insurance. She asked it to amend the insurance policy so that the building was covered in the correct category. She wanted the landlord to then complete the repair to the roof and claim the cost of doing so from the insurance. She received no acknowledgement to her complaint. She therefore emailed the landlord on 12 January 2023 to check if it had been received. She said, “this really is getting a bit ridiculous that even complaints are ignoring my complaint.”
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 February 2023. It said:
    1. It was not treating the roof repair as an insurance matter. The block was a mixed block of rented and leasehold properties. The repair costs would therefore be less than the excess amount.
    2. In order for it to accept a service failure in relation to a repair, a previous report had to have been raised with it within the past 6 months. There were no records of the resident having reported the roof repair within this time period.
    3. There was a delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. It wished to offer the resident £50 compensation for this.
  7. The resident asked on the same day, 16 February 2023, to escalate her complaint. She explained again that all 5 properties in the building were leasehold. She wanted the landlord to ensure it amended the insurance policy to reflect this. She said the roof repair should then be paid for by insurance money rather than being recouped from the residents through their service charge.
  8. Over the course of the next month, the resident and the landlord exchanged some emails. The landlord confirmed on 8 March 2023 that the building was correctly insured under a policy for leaseholders and shared owners. It apologised for its error in advising it was insured under a policy for leaseholders and tenants.  It confirmed that the claims excess was £100, not £10,000.
  9. On 27 March 2023, the landlord sent a formal acknowledgement of the complaint escalation request. It said it would respond by 21 April 2023. The resident responded to clarify that she sought confirmation that the work carried out on the roof was, “covered by the insurance with the lower excesses.” She sent a further email on 24 April 2023 to ask the landlord why it had not yet issued its stage 2 response. She said she wanted to challenge some costs on a recent service charge demand. She was unable to do this until the landlord provided clarification on what it had included in the service charge for the roof repairs.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response later that same day, 24 April 2024. It said:
    1. All communal repairs were the landlord’s responsibility, not leaseholders.
    2. The insurer was incorrect to advise that there was a £10,000 excess for the building. As the insurer deals with many companies, “the information they provided to you may not have been specifically related to the terms of their policy with [the landlord].”
    3. The building was insured under a leaseholder and shared owner policy. Residents were responsible for paying the excess outlined in the policy. The excess was £100 for each claim, with higher amounts for flood (£150), escape of water (£350) and subsidence (£1,000).
    4. No recent claims had been made against the buildings insurance by either the landlord or any of the residents. The landlord advised the resident how she could make a claim for any damages she incurred inside her property due to the roof repairs.
    5. There was no service failure. However, the landlord acknowledged there was a delay in providing the stage 2 response. It apologised and offered £50 compensation.
  11. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She told us she was concerned that she had been, “potentially charged for repairs which should have been completed under our insurance policy.” She complained that the landlord had not advised her how much the roof repairs cost “despite asking on numerous occasions.” She said, “these roof charges are also likely to have impacted our service charge costs for this year.”

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about insurance and repair costs

  1. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord retained ownership of the communal parts of the building, including the roof. It was responsible for maintaining and repairing these areas. The landlord had to have buildings insurance in place. Where the building became damaged by an insured risk, the lease stated that the landlord must, “as soon as reasonably practicable make a claim against the insurers and lay out the insurance moneys received (other than in respect of rent) in the repair rebuilding or reinstatement of same.”
  2. The lease set out how a service charge for the building would be calculated. The cost of the buildings insurance was included in the calculation as were any excess payments on claims. The resident’s share of the service charge was 20%.
  3. In November 2022, the landlord’s insurer advised the resident that the building was insured as a leaseholder and tenant block. This was inaccurate. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the building has always been insured under a leaseholder and shared owner policy. It provided us with a copy of the insurance policy for April 2022 – March 2023 which confirms this. There was therefore no failure in service by the landlord in terms of the type of insurance cover it had put in place for the building.
  4. The resident reasonably relied upon the advice given by the insurer. When she contacted the landlord in November 2022 and expressed her concerns, it did not respond. When she followed this up a month later, it did not respond. This demonstrated poor customer service. It led to the resident worrying for a number of months that her building was not correctly insured. This could reasonably have been avoided had the landlord provided confirmation sooner.
  5. The landlord was obliged under the lease to ensure adequate insurance cover is in place. Therefore, for the landlord’s own benefit as well as the resident’s, it should have made enquiries internally or with the insurer to ensure appropriate cover was in place. It has provided no evidence that it did this prior to undertaking the formal complaint investigation 3 months later. However, even if it did satisfy itself in November 2022 that appropriate cover was in place, it was unreasonable that it did not communicate this to the resident.
  6. The landlord missed an opportunity to deal with the resident’s initial enquiry as a simple service request. Instead, its lack of response led to the resident making a formal complaint in January 2023.
  7. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to ensure that it fully responds to all aspects of a complaint. There were 4 main issues raised by the resident in her complaint. These were that the landlord had not responded to her, it still had not repaired the roof, incorrect insurance cover was in place, and she wanted the insurance to cover the costs. The landlord failed to provide a full response to each of these issues for the following reasons:
    1. Responses to the resident – the landlord acknowledged it delayed in issuing both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. It offered £50 compensation for each delay in line with its compensation policy. As per the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this is an appropriate level of compensation for complaint delays. However, the landlord did not apologise in either complaint response for failing to respond to the resident when she enquired about the insurance in November and December 2022. It did not acknowledge that had it replied sooner, the resident would not have needed to go to the time and trouble of raising a formal complaint.
    2. Roof repair – the resident said she contacted the landlord via its repairs email address on 23 October 2022 to report storm damage to the roof. The landlord indicated in its stage 1 complaint response that it had no record of this or any other repair report made by the resident within the past 6 months. The landlord’s record keeping is considered in more detail below. However, regardless of whether or not it received the resident’s initial report on 23 October, there is evidence that she was in contact with a housing officer and sent at least 2 emails in November and December 2022 regarding damage to the roof. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this in its stage 1 response and to apologise for the delay in completing the repair. As per its repairs policy, the landlord should have completed the work within 20 working days of the resident reporting the issue. It failed to complete the repair within that timeframe. In addition to not acknowledging this, the stage 1 response did not explain if the landlord had inspected the roof and carried out any work. The landlord did not confirm whether it was satisfied that the roof was in good repair in line with its repair obligations under the lease.
    3. Insurance cover – the landlord incorrectly advised the resident in its stage 1 response that leaseholder and tenant building insurance was in place. This was despite the resident having already told the landlord on a number of occasions that the building contained leaseholders only. When the resident pointed out again that this was wrong in her escalation request, the original complaint handler made further internal enquiries. She then replied to the resident and confirmed there was leaseholder and shared owner cover in place. She apologised for the error in the stage 1 response. The resident subsequently clarified with the landlord, upon receiving acknowledgement of her escalation request, that she would like the error addressed in the stage 2 response. The landlord failed to do so. The stage 2 response confirmed that leaseholder and shared owner insurance cover was in place. It did not explain why it gave wrong advice about this in its stage 1 response. It did not acknowledge or apologise that this unnecessarily extended the period of time during which the resident was worried incorrect insurance cover was in place. It did not clarify whether its misunderstanding had any bearing on its decision whether or not to make an insurance claim. On the contrary, it referred to the stage 1 response as being “appropriate”, acknowledging only that it, “could have adapted further” in its response. It did not explain what it meant by this.
    4. Costs of roof repair – when escalating her complaint, the resident specifically asked the landlord to clarify the cost of repairing the roof and how it would pass this cost on to residents. She said she needed this information as she was considering challenging her service charge. The landlord confirmed in the stage 2 response that it had not made an insurance claim in relation to the roof. However, it failed to explain what work had been carried out to the roof, how much it cost, and who would pay for this. If it was the case that the cost of the repair did not exceed the £100 excess, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assure the resident of this in its response. If the cost exceeded the excess amount, the landlord should have explained to the resident why an insurance claim was not made, particularly given its obligations under the lease to claim for insured risks. It should have advised the resident how much of the cost would be added to the service charge. If having received this information, the resident felt she had been unfairly billed for the work, she could have considered applying to the First Tier Property Tribunal. The Tribunal, rather than the Ombudsman, is responsible for determining whether service charge demands are reasonable. However, she was hampered in considering this action as the landlord failed to respond to her request for an explanation of the roof repair costs.
  8. Given the failures outlined above, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about insurance and repair costs. What started as a misunderstanding that the landlord could easily have corrected, became an unnecessarily protracted complaint.  The landlord compounded the resident’s concerns by providing inaccurate information in its stage 1 response. It failed to acknowledge this at stage 2. It did not fully respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint. This meant that it did provide a through complaint response as required by the Code.
  9. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the service failure. This is in addition to the £50 offered at stage 1 and the £50 offered at stage 2 as these amounts were for the delays in issuing the complaint responses.
  10. The landlord is also ordered to write to the resident and advise what repair work it carried out to the roof following the storm damage in October 2022, how much this cost, and who paid for it.

The landlord’s record keeping

  1. As outlined above, the landlord advised the resident it did not have a record to evidence that she reported the roof repair in November 2022. It provided the Ombudsman with a ‘Property Repair History Report’ covering from 2005 to 2023. It indicates that the only repairs ever reported by the resident were made between 2009 and 2016. However, we note that this historydocument states that her ‘tenancy’ ended on 22 November 2022. It then records that a different named individual started the ‘tenancy’ from 23 November 2022. This is inaccurate. The resident wasthe sole leaseholder of the property from 2005 until she sold it in late 2023.
  2. Further inaccuracies are evident in other repair records. The landlord confirmed in an internal email that it carried out repair work to the roof and gutters of the building in January 2023. However, the landlord provided the Ombudsman with a repair log for the building when submitting evidence as part of this complaint investigation. The repair log runs from April 2009 to June 2023. It shows that the landlord carried out repairs to the roof and gutters in 2019. However, it does not record any such work as having been carried out in 2022 or 2023.
  3. Given this, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord is ordered to update its repair records to ensure they accurately reflect the full duration of the resident’s tenure and include details of all work carried out to the roof.
  4. The Ombudsman is currently conducting a paragraph 49 investigation into the landlord. Under paragraph 49 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may conduct further investigation beyond the initial complaint or member landlord to establish whether any presenting evidence is indicative of a systemic failing. For that reason, while we have identified failings in the landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling we have not made any wider orders. Rather, the orders that have been made relate to the resident alone.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about insurance and repair costs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation as follows:

i. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about insurance and repair costs.

ii. £50 being the amount offered by the landlord on 16 February 2023 for the delay in issuing the stage 1 complaint response. If this amount has already been paid, it can be deducted from the £200 ordered.

iii. £50 being the amount offered by the landlord on 24 April 2023 for the delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response. If this amount has already been paid, it can be deducted from the £200 ordered.

  1. Write to the resident and advise what repair work it carried out to the roof following the storm damage in October 2022, how much this cost, and who paid for it.
  2. Update its repair records to ensure they accurately reflect the full duration of the resident’s tenure and include details of all work carried out to the roof.