Hyde Housing Association Limited (202313640)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313640

Hyde Housing Association Limited

17 October 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak into the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a housing association. The lease commenced on 13 April 2018. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the eighth floor.
  2. The landlord’s records note that the resident has an “undisclosed disability.”
  3. The freeholder for the block is the developer, referred to in the resident’s lease as the head landlord. The landlord is a leaseholder of the head landlord. The resident holds a shared ownership lease directly with the landlord. There is a managing agent in place to carry out certain services.
  4. The resident emailed the managing agent on 10 March 2022 to report a leak. He continued to liaise with them over the following 7 months, including by email on 11 October. Having been unsuccessful in its attempts to establish the cause of the leak the managing agent instructed a leak detection specialist. On 18 November the specialist traced the leak to a wall mounted shower tap in the main bathroom of the property directly above the resident. A hole was cut into the resident’s bedroom ceiling during the course of the investigation into the source of the leak.
  5. In his email to the landlord of 16 December 2022 the resident confirmed that the leak had stopped. He enquired as to next steps to remedy the damage to his bedroom ceiling. Over the course of December 2022, January and February 2023 the landlord, managing agent and resident exchanged emails to determine who was responsible for rectifying the damage.
  6. On 26 October 2022 the resident submitted an online complaint, as follows:
    1. He had been experiencing an ongoing leak since February when it was flagged to the managing agent. What started as a damp ceiling had turned into “constant dripping.” He was using saucepans to catch the drips.
    2. There had been a large dark patch on the ceiling for 9 months. His master bedroom had been unusable for the past 2 weeks
    3. He asked the landlord to fix the problem “urgently” and was concerned there was no plan to resolve the situation.
    4. A plumber had been out intermittently but there had been no progress. Attempts made to turn off the water to the 2 flats directly above the resident had not improved the situation.
    5. He was concerned that if they tried to investigate using a process of elimination on a flat by flat basis the problem may not be resolved for over 100 days.
  7. On 21 December 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, the main points being:
    1. It could see it was a “long drawn out process”, adding that it was sorry for the distress and inconvenience caused. It should have completed the repairs “much sooner” and upheld the complaint.
    2. It offered £75 compensation comprised of:
      1. £50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint.
      2. £25 for poor communication, time and trouble.
    3. It did not own the building so there was no failure. However, there were some delays in resolving the leak owing to the time taken to find the source of the leak and then remedying the problem.
    4. The managing agent carried out a leak detection exercise on 18 November 2022. It found the leak to be coming from the mounted shower tap in the bathroom of a neighbouring property and was now resolved.
    5. The resident’s complaint was made during “November 2022.” It apologised for its delayed response which was outside of its expected response times and was “not the level of service you deserve.”
    6. It acknowledged it needed to be “quicker” at responding to residents when a repair was initially reported, along with when this needs to be escalated because a complaint had been received about its services.
    7. It was undertaking a number of actions within the business to ensure it was able to do this across all service areas, especially repairs, as it was aware of how much it impacted on residents when they went wrong.
  8. On 17 January 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to express his ongoing dissatisfaction with its response, as follows:
    1. Upon detection of the leak on 18 November 2022 the leak continued for a further 27 days until 15 December. This was because the landlord did not enforce that the resident above isolate the bathroom. The leak was resolved by the resident above on 16 December.
    2. The “large hole” and “black spores” remained in the ceiling. The resident asked for clarity on who was responsible for the repair and could not proceed until the dispute was resolved.
    3. He declined to accept the offer of £75 compensation. This was because it only reflected the complaint handling failures and did not take into account:
      1. “Negligence” in responding to the leak reported in March 2022 only taking action in October, 7 months later.
      2. The lack of enforcement action which meant the leak continued for 27 days after it was detected.
      3. The distress and inconvenience caused in addition to time and trouble trying to seek a resolution.
  9. On 26 October 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, the main points being:
    1. It apologised for “further difficulties you had regarding all of this” and acknowledged the frustration caused.
    2. It increased its offer of compensation to £500 comprised of:
      1. £250 for complaint handling failures.
      2. £50 for delays in service delivery.
      3. £200 for customer effort.
    3. Its home ownership team had been in contact with the resident and arranged for him to be put in touch with the resident above.
    4. It had already considered the resident’s request to escalate his complaint. It wrote to him on 2 March to say it would not be changing its decision.
    5. However, following the resident’s contact with the Ombudsman it advised that:
      1. The leak was from one homeowner property to another therefore any repairs needed would be between them and their insurers.
      2. The leak was not the landlord’s responsibility, it sat with the managing agent.
      3. It had an open dialogue with the resident until March 2023. It provided all relevant information including who was responsible for what.
      4. The resident would need to seek compensation for loss of income and for living with damp and mould privately from the resident in the property above or their insurers.
    6. During a call with the resident that day its home ownership team agreed to speak to the managing agent to see if it would be willing to provide compensation due to the length of time taken to locate the leak. It said it could not “promise they will award you any compensation.”
  10. The resident contacted this Service on 10 November 2023 to request that we investigate his complaint because the compensation offered was below what he had asked for. The complaint became one we could consider on 1 February 2024.

Events post internal complaints process

  1. In an email to this Service dated 30 September 2024 the resident confirmed that he had paid a plasterer £350 plus his £15 congestion charge to repair his ceiling.

Assessment and findings

  1. Clause 5.5 of the resident’s lease states that the landlord shall enforce covenants in other leases if so required by the leaseholder to enforce the tenant’s covenant’s similar to those contained in this lease which are or may be entered into by the tenants of other shared ownership flats or tenancies granted by the landlord in the building so far as they affect the premises provided that the leaseholder indemnifies the landlord against all costs and expenses as the landlord may reasonably require provided further that the landlord in its absolute discretion considers it reasonable to pursue such action and that there is a reasonable prospect of successful action being pursued.
  2. The landlord’s home ownership policy statement sets out its key objectives, including:
    1. Its staff should be aware of its approach to home ownership homes.
    2. Provision of a high quality service in the management of its buildings.
    3. Ensuring that homeowners uphold the covenants in their lease.
    4. Communicate and consult with homeowners effectively and provide easy and fair access to its services.
  3. According to the Association of British Insurers, buildings insurance, rather than contents insurance, “covers the structure of your home such as walls, wallpaper, ceilings and permanent fixtures and fittings like baths, toilets, and fitted kitchens”.
  4. The landlord’s complaint handling policy says that:
    1. It will formally acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and will issue its response within 10 working days. If it needs extra time it will explain this to the resident and give a date for its response. This will be no more than a further 10 working days.
    2. In most cases it will agree to look again at its decision at stage 2. It may not do so if:
      1. Its decision is based on published service standards and policy.
      2. It has agreed to carry out a non-urgent repair within its published timescale of 20 working days and the complaint is about time taken to schedule the repair.
      3. The complaint has been upheld but the resident has requested an increase in compensation offered.
    3. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.

  1. The resident emailed the managing agent on 10 March 2022 to report that a “patch of damp” had appeared on the ceiling of his master bedroom. He sent a further email on 23 March to report that a hole had developed in the plaster and water was dripping onto his bed.
  2. The resident and managing agent exchanged emails about the ongoing leak during April, May and June 2022. On 2 June the managing agent apologised it was taking so long and said it was “unacceptable” that it had not been resolved.
  3. The emails between the managing agent and resident continued during October 2022. On 11 October the resident said that the ceiling was dripping “constantly and getting worse.” An email to the resident from the managing agent dated 18 October shows that it was systematically isolating individual flats to try to find the source of the leak.
  4. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on managing agents sets out that managing agents directly appointed by landlords to discharge their duties are considered to be an extension of the landlord itself. Therefore, they are expected to monitor performance and take appropriate action to address poor performance as if the service was in house.
  5. 8 months after the resident first reported the leak, the managing agent had still not located the source of the problem. The delay was inappropriate causing considerable distress to the resident who was using saucepans to contain the leak. Furthermore, he was concerned about the growth of mould arising as consequence of the leak.
  6. The landlord’s responsibility was mitigated because there is no evidence that it was aware of the problem during that time. However, it is concerning that during those 8 months the substantive issue had not been discussed between the managing agent and landlord. This is evidence of a lack of effective liaison and poor communication between the 2 parties which was inappropriate.
  7. The evidence shows that the landlord was put on notice by at least 26 October 2022, when the resident made his first formal complaint. Also on 26 October the managing agent emailed the resident to say that a leak detection specialist was attending on 1 November.
  8. Given the nature of the resident’s complaint and the duration of the leak it would have been appropriate for the landlord to act with some urgency. However, there is no evidence that it requested an urgent update from the managing agent in order to agree an action plan, which would have been reasonable.
  9. The first evidence of communication between the landlord and managing agent was an email sent by the managing agent to the landlord on 18 November 2022. This was 23 days after the resident submitted his complaint. The email confirmed that the leak detection specialist had located the source of the leak. It was caused by a wall mounted shower tap in the main bathroom of the property above. It asked the landlord to request that the resident in the property above isolate the main bathroom until the repair was complete.
  10. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response which was inappropriate, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the impact on the resident. The managing agent sent an email to chase on 21 November 2022, adding that the leak had been going on for some time so a “speedy” response by the landlord would be appreciated. It also attached a copy of the leak detection report. The landlord was asked to provide a copy of the report for the purposes of this investigation but failed to do so. This is a record keeping failure.
  11. The landlord again failed to respond causing the resident time and trouble when he emailed on 22 November 2022 to chase. The landlord’s email to the resident of 23 November demonstrated that it had misunderstood the cause of the leak. Despite information provided by the managing agent confirming otherwise, it wrongly thought the leak was caused by an issue with the handheld shower. It said the resident in the property above would stop using the element until the issue was resolved.
  12. The managing agent emailed the landlord on the same day, 23 November 2022, to advise the problem was not with the shower hose. It reiterated that the leak was from the wall mounted shower tap and set out what the resident above needed to do to isolate the bathroom. The landlord replied on the same day to say it would speak with the resident above. However, the leak did not stop and the resident was caused further inconvenience when he emailed the landlord again on 24 November to chase.
  13. Following further email exchanges between the resident, managing agent and landlord the managing agent emailed the landlord on 28 November 2022 to ask if it had asked the resident above to isolate the bathroom. The resident also emailed the landlord on 29 November to chase. In his email he confirmed that the leak detection specialist had cut a “large” hole in his ceiling.
  14. The landlord replied on 1 December 2022 to say that the resident above had made a claim on the building warranty because it was concerned the leak was a result of a defect. It failed to provide an update on whether it had asked the resident above to isolate the bathroom. This compounded the distress caused to the resident. Furthermore, it showed a lack of understanding of the substantive issue and lack of empathy in terms of the impact on the resident.
  15. On 5 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to ask if he had managed to make contact with the resident above and if not, it would do so that day. By now 17 days had passed since the managing agent’s email to the landlord of 18 November. The terms of the lease set out the landlord’s obligations to enforce covenants of other shared owners and tenants. The leak had been ongoing since March 2022. The distress caused to the resident and damage caused to his property was compounded by the landlord’s inaction which was unreasonable.
  16. The landlord spoke to the resident above on 6 December 2022 and arranged for the resident to be in contact with him. On 16 December the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that the leak had stopped and the tap repaired. He asked about next steps to repair the damage caused to his ceiling. He confirmed that the claim made by the resident above against the building warranty had been rejected.
  17. On 20 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that as the responsibility for the leak lay with the resident above it would not be able to claim on its building insurance. It advised him to claim on the resident above’s contents insurance.
  18. In his email to the landlord of 21 December 2022 the resident advised that his contents insurance did not cover damage to ceilings. He asked the landlord to confirm if its advice was that the resident above was responsible for repairing the damage to his ceiling. The landlord failed to provide a response which was inappropriate, causing additional distress to the resident. Furthermore, it caused inconvenience, time and trouble when he emailed again on 9 January 2023 to chase.
  19. In its email to the resident of 10 January 2023 the landlord said the question of liability for the repair was a matter between the 2 homeowners to resolve. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 January to say the resident above believed he should claim on the building insurance and asked how he could proceed.
  20. On 17 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it did not hold buildings insurance for the block so it would be up to the managing agent to advise if he could make a claim. This was contrary to its email of 20 December 2022 when it said it could not claim on its buildings insurance, suggesting it had a policy in place.
  21. According to the Association of British Insurers, buildings insurance, rather than contents insurance, “covers the structure of your home such as ceilings.” It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord to suggest the resident make a claim on either his own or the resident above’s content insurance. This caused him avoidable inconvenience, time and trouble trying to pursue this option.
  22. In his email to the landlord of 17 January 2023 the resident set out his frustration at being stuck in the middle of a disagreement between the landlord and the resident above. He said he could not proceed with the repair until the dispute was resolved.
  23. The managing agent provided the resident with details of the building insurance cover. On 18 January 2023 it was agreed by all parties that the resident would contact the insurance provider regarding a claim.
  24. It is accepted that the landlord did not hold building insurance. However, the resident had no legal relationship with the managing agent nor the freeholder. Therefore, the resident’s only recourse was to the landlord. It therefore should have supported the resident to make a claim on the buildings insurance. Instead, it inappropriately put the onus on him to resolve the matter. This demonstrated a lack of understanding of the legal relationship and the impact on the resident thus far, who had already gone to considerable lengths to try to resolve the issue.
  25. On 31 January 2023 the resident emailed the managing agent, copying in the landlord, to seek an update from an internal meeting it had had regarding insurance claims on 24 January. He did not receive a response so chased by email on 14 February. On 23 February he emailed the managing agent and landlord to express his frustration that he had not received an update about the meeting and the lack of guidance on how to rectify the damage caused by the leak.
  26. As set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on managing agents, landlords should take ownership of the landlord-resident relationship and stop the practice of ‘signposting’ the resident when it’s the landlord’s responsibility to sort things out. They should remember the “human element and the frustrations residents will feel”. The expectation is that landlords take ownership for getting clear updates and action from managing agents and/or freeholders, and failure to do so is unsatisfactory.
  27. The landlord’s email response of 23 February 2023 once again inappropriately signposted the resident to make a claim on contents insurance and reiterated its view that the matter was between the 2 owners.
  28. The landlord inappropriately distanced itself from the managing agent and failed to consider how, given the contractual relationship, it could have improved its service to the resident.  Despite the evidence showing that the resident had to chase for responses it considered there was no failure of service with regards to its communication.
  29. Despite acknowledging that the resident had been caused distress and inconvenience in its stage 1 complaint response of 21 December 2022 the landlord failed to offer any compensation. This was inappropriate because a positive complaint handling culture means a landlord should “pay compensation in cases where there has been avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact”.
  30. In its stage 2 complaint response of 26 October 2023 the landlord offered £250. This was comprised of £50 for delays in service delivery and £200 for effort.
  31. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. Furthermore, the landlord has not fully acknowledged its failings and the impact they had on the resident.
  32. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation for distress and inconvenience which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. It reflects the considerable effort made by the resident to resolve the situation. The landlord may deduct the £250 it has offered if this has already been paid.

The ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 26 October 2022. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day to confirm that a complaint had been raised. It said it would be allocated to an officer who would contact him to discuss his concerns. It said that due to high volumes of complaints the resident may experience a delay before the complaints team contacted him.
  2. While it was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident of a likely delay it failed to provide an indication of when he might be contacted which was unreasonable. This caused uncertainty and time and trouble for the resident who emailed the landlord again on 31 October 2022 to raise his concerns.
  3. On 8 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to formally acknowledge the complaint and said it would respond by 22 November. However, it failed to do so causing the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when he emailed the landlord on 29 November to chase.
  4. On 30 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to say it needed more time to gather relevant information and the response deadline was extended to 12 December. This was inappropriate because it was an apology for not doing something rather than an email to proactively manage the resident’s expectations.
  5. The resident was again caused inconvenience, time and trouble when he emailed the landlord on 13 December 2022 to express his disappointment that it had not issued its complaint response.
  6. The landlord failed to comply with its complaint policy by explaining that it required further time, giving a date for its response. The extension also exceeded an additional 10 working days as set out in the policy.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 December 2022. This was 40 working days after the resident made his complaint which was 30 working days outside of time. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered £75 compensation as a means of putting it right.
  8. The stage 1 complaint response was inaccurate because it referred to the resident’s complaint of November 2022 however, it was made on 26 October and again on 31 October.
  9. The stage 1 complaint response itself was confusing because it set out that it was only able to fully investigate service failures that occurred up to 6 months prior to receipt of complaint in accordance with its complaints policy. This was inappropriate because it was not relevant to the circumstances of the resident’s case given that the complaint was about current failure to provide a service.
  10. The landlord included 2 points of learning regarding its general response to repairs. Given the way it was written, and the landlord’s conclusion that there was no failure of service because it was not responsible for the leak, it is unclear how this paragraph relates to the substantive issue or the outcome of the complaint.
  11. The Ombudsman made the same observations when determining case reference 202314459 where it appears that the paragraphs relating to the 6 month guide and the repairs learning are standard paragraphs used by the landlord in its complaint responses. This is inappropriate because it demonstrates that the landlord has not tailored its responses to the circumstances of each individual case.
  12. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) requires landlords’ complaint handlers to act independently and have an open mind. It should demonstrate that it has considered all information and evidence carefully. The use of standard paragraphs, particularly if wrongly applied, undermines the principles of the Code.
  13. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 17 January 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response of 26 October the landlord said it had provided a response to the resident on 2 March to say it would not change its decision. This investigation has not seen a copy of that letter. However, the landlord’s response was not in line with its complaints policy which sets out the criteria for declining to investigate at stage 2.
  14. The landlord then emailed the resident on 11 April 2023 to say that he had exhausted its internal complaints process and signposted him to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.  The resident contacted us by completing our webform on 4 August.
  15. On 19 October 2023 we wrote to the landlord to ask that it provide a copy of its complaint response if it had already issued one or if not, provide a response by 26 October.
  16. On 26 October 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had tried to contact him by phone and had left a voicemail. The officer introduced themselves as the complaints officer for the resident’s stage 2 complaint, adding that a response would be issued by 23 November.
  17. It was inappropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the complaint on the day the response was due. The deadline of 23 November 2023 was almost a month after the deadline set by this Service, prolonging the complaints process further. This caused detriment to the resident because it delayed his resolution of the landlord’s complaints process which ultimately delayed his ability to access our Service. The landlord did then provide its response in time, on 26 October.
  18. The Code encourages landlords to take an open minded approach to complaint handling, using it as an opportunity to take steps to improve the service it provides.  The tone of the landlord’s stage 2 response was defensive overall.  It considered that resolution of the leak itself and the remedial repairs were outside its obligations. Its lack of accountability demonstrated a lack of empathy and understanding of the challenges encountered by the resident in trying to source the leak, stop it and remedy the damage caused.
  19. The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. In its stage 2 complaint response of 26 October 2023 the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for its complaint handling failures. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.
  20. However, this does not prevent an adverse finding in the case because the landlord has failed to demonstrate learning. It has failed to provide meaningful acknowledgement of its complaint handling failures and failed to identify what it would do differently.

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 report of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in the case. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
    2. Pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak. The landlord may deduct the £250 it has offered if this has already been paid.
    3. Assist the resident to make a liability insurance claim if he wishes to do so. Evidence of compliance should be provided within 4 weeks.