Hyde Housing Association Limited (202316294)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316294

Hyde Housing Association Limited

3 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 reports of damp, mould, and drainage issues within the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy agreement started on 8 March 2023. The resident lives in the property with her daughter. The resident is a carer for her daughter.
The resident viewed the property on 2 March 2023. The following day, she contacted the landlord via its online enquiry form. She raised several issues with the property, including the bathroom lighting, condition of an electric heater and the condition of the gardens and communal areas.
The landlord reviewed the resident’s concerns and reported matters to its property management team, tenancy team, and the responsive repairs team.
The resident moved into the property. She reported problems with drainage to the landlord on 11 April and 18 April 2023. Records show the landlord attended and unblocked the toilet. It referred further works to a specialist drainage contractor “X”. X attended on 18 April 2023 and reported that food caused the kitchen sink blockage. X attended again on 24 April 2023. It jetted the soil stack and checked the bath and toilet were draining correctly.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 April 2023. She said she was experiencing blockages within the drainage system and had to drain her washing machine into buckets. She said X told her that the landlord needed to replace all the pipework. She also said there was damp throughout the flat causing mould on the paintwork.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 May 2023. It said:
1. It had spoken to its empty homes and lettings team. They advised there was no sign of rising damp or blockages in the property when they were undertaking works in the home (before the resident started her tenancy).
2. It responded promptly to address the resident’s initial reports of blockages but failed to follow up by fixing the issue.
3. It resolved the blockage on 10 May 2023 and would replace the pipework boxing on 24 May 2023.
4. It had scheduled a mould wash for 10 June 2023.
5. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and offered £400 compensation.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 5 June 2023. She asked why the landlord let the property to her considering its condition. She chased for a response on 7 July 2023 and expressed concern that the landlord had allegedly closed her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 August 2023. It said:
1. It did not complete repairs to the resident’s home when it should of, and it did not communicate with the resident as to how it would complete the repairs.
2. A plumber would attend the bathroom stack on 10 August 2023.
3. The landlord had been trying to contact the resident to schedule installation of cavity wall insulation. Following this, the landlord would check and repair the exterior brickwork.
4. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and increased its offer of compensation from £400 to £650.
5. The compensation offer was comprised of:
  1. £100 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaints process
  2. £100 for the complaint handling failures
  3. £150 for the delays in service delivery
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience
  5. £100 for customer effort

Events after the end of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure

Records show the resident continued to report drainage problems and damp and mould within the property following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.
The landlord informed this Service that it completed extensive works to identify and remedy the drainage issues, damp, and mould. It said it finished these works by the end of March 2024.The resident has not confirmed this.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies, procedures, and laws

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure says it will make an emergency repair safe within 24 hours. It will complete an ‘anytime repair’ within 20 working days. It will undertake major repairs or complex works as per its stock investment procedure.
The landlord’s damp and mould procedure (November 2022) sets out that it will:
1. Complete a property inspection where it is unable to identify the root cause verbally.
2. Ensure it raises the necessary repairs or referrals to its stock investment team.
3. Post-inspect repairs carried out due to damp and mould issues and ensure it schedules a follow-up visit within 6 months.
The landlord’s complaint procedure explains it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days following formal acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will respond within 20 working days. If the landlord requires longer at either stage, it will keep the resident informed and may take an additional 10 working days to respond.

Scope of investigation

This complaint considers matters up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response – 10 August 2023. If the resident wants to complain about events that occurred after this date, it is open for her to contact the landlord directly.
Within the resident’s complaint referral to this Service, she complained about personal items damaged by damp and mould. This Service noted her concerns but will not be able to review the landlord’s handling of this matter. This is because the resident did not raise this within her initial complaint(April 2023) and the landlord has not had an opportunity to consider this through its formal complaint procedure.
The resident said the landlord’s actions impacted the mental and physical wellbeing of her household. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on the health of an occupant. Nor can we calculate or award damages. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Assessment

Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The resident is of the view the landlord should not have let the property due to its condition. Within her complaint she referenced damp, mould, and drainage problems and so this investigation focuses on these aspects only.
The landlord evidenced that it made enquiries with its property management team and trade supervisor regarding the resident’s concerns. It also examined photos and reports completed while the property was empty. The landlord found no evidence of the damp, mould and blockages referred to by the resident. Further, the landlord provided historical records for the flat to this Service. These records show that while there were historical reports of mould and drainage issues, there were no reports of these issues from 2020 onwards, until reported by the resident in April 2023.
The Ombudsman notes that within the resident’s correspondence to the landlord the day after viewing the property, she informed it about some repair issues but there was no mention of damp or mould inside the flat.
After considering the evidence available, the Ombudsman finds the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and took reasonable steps to investigate them. The Ombudsman has seen nothing to evidence the landlord was aware of current damp, mould, or drainage issues at the property at the time it offered it to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Based on the information provided to this Service, the Ombudsman finds the landlord did not follow best practice in this case.
Following a resident’s report of damp within a property, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action.
The landlord’s records show the resident initially reported damp and mould within the property on 24 April 2023 and 25 April 2023. The landlord raised a request for a mould wash on 9 May 2023 however there are no records of an inspection until 18 August 2023 (after the stage 2 response had been issued). This was 21 weeks after the resident’s initial response.
While the landlord arranged a mould wash as a temporary measure, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord did not attend the property within a reasonable timeframe to inspect the property and establish the reason for the damp and mould. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds the landlord did not respond appropriately.
With regards to the resident’s initial reports of drainage problems – it is evident the landlord attended within an appropriate timescale. When it was not able to fully resolve the problem, it appointed a specialist contractor. This is what the Ombudsman would expect in the circumstances.
When deciding on how best to proceed with a repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the drainage specialist recorded after its attendance in April 2023 that the toilet was flushing, the bath was free-flowing, the outside drain was clear, and the drainage in the flat above was fine with nothing back-flowing into the resident’s flat. It jetted the stack as requested by the landlord. There is also another record from April 2023 where the contractor reported that food caused the kitchen sink blockage. A landlord can only make decisions based on the information available to it at the time.Based on the evidence provided to this Service, the Ombudsman has not identified a failing by the landlord at this stage.
The resident reported further occurrences of blockages in the drainage system, shortly after specialist contractors had attended the property. In view of this, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to manage further investigations effectively and with a sense of urgency, to identify and resolve the problem as soon as possible.
Within this case, the Ombudsman finds the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously and arranged for further investigations, which identified a copper pipe had furred and food waste was catching on it. The landlord raised a work order to explore long term solutions and reroute the waste pipe, however there were delays due to suspected asbestos in the area and the need for a survey. The Ombudsman identified delays with progressing the asbestos survey and the next steps to resolve the issues, which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Additionally, the landlord failed to evidence whether it considered ways to reduce the impact on the resident while the work remained outstanding.
It is not disputed that the landlord did not update the resident regularly and she spent an unreasonable amount of time chasing for updates and attempting to drive the repairs forward. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings throughout exacerbated the situation and worsened the impact on the resident. This further undermined the landlord/resident relationship. The landlord also missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations and set out a clear plan of action to complete an effective and lasting repair.
The resident complained on 25 April 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 May 2023 – 10 working days later. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 June 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 August 2023 – over 9 weeks later.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timeframes without good reason.
The resident said the landlord closed her complaint at stage 1 as she missed a repair appointment. The landlord has not evidenced the reason for the complaint handling delay, nor did it investigate this at stage 2. This was inappropriate. While it recognised there were complaint handling failures, the landlord should have described the specific failures and investigated the resident’s concern within its stage 2 review. Based on the limited information available here, the Ombudsman unable to conclude that it acted fully in line with its complaint handling obligations or the Code.
At the time of writing its final complaint response, the landlord set out the next steps with the resident for a plumber to attend the stack, the installation of cavity wall insulation and checks/repairs to the external brickwork. It was appropriate for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the next steps and to explain who would be managing the repairs through to completion.
However, it is a concern to the Ombudsman that the landlord did not mention the survey it had arranged for 18 August 2023, or explain what the plumber would do with the stack. It also did not clarify its position concerning the drainage contractor’s recommendation to replace pipework. In the Ombudsman’s view, considering the number of contractors who had already attended the property, the landlord should have done more to clarify its position with the resident and reassure her that it was handling the investigations and repairs effectively.
In determining this case, the Ombudsman considered what information was available to the landlord when it handled the resident’s complaint. At this point, the landlord had not yet identified the extensive works required to remedy the issues reported by the resident.
At stage 2, the landlord recognised some of its shortcomings and offered £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures. Considering the issues identified within this report, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the circumstances of this case or the impact on the resident. To this end, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 to recognise the service failings within its complaint handling.
The landlord offered £450 to recognise the repair delay, distress and inconvenience caused, and customer effort. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances considering the resident’s overall experience. Further, our remedies guidance (available on our website), suggests compensation between £100 and £600 is appropriate when there were failings that adversely impacted a resident but there was no permanent impact.
The Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration for the substantive issue. While the landlord apologised for its failings and offered appropriate redress (in line with our remedies guidance), the repairs remained unresolved for a significant period after the landlord issued its final complaint response. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the landlord’s complaint procedure and whether it learnt from the complaint outcome, as we expect it to under the dispute resolution principles.
The Ombudsman has recently made several orders in other investigations into this landlord about reviewing its repairs service delivery, complaint handling, and its communication. The Ombudsman has therefore not made orders or recommendations around these aspects of service but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning from this case into account going forward.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould, and drainage issues within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident the £450 compensation it previously offered for the repair delays, distress and inconvenience caused (if it has not yet done so).
2. Pay the resident £300 compensation for its complaint handling failures (which includes the £200 previously offered by the landlord).
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.