Hyde Housing Association Limited (202318279)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202318279
Hyde Housing Association Limited
25 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
- Reports of water ingress from the roof.
- Complaint.
- This report will also assess the landlord’s record keeping.
Background and summary of events
- The resident is a leaseholder of a 2 bedroom flat. She acquired the leasehold title in October 2010 under the shared ownership scheme. She pays rent to the landlord, who owns a 60% share of the property. The resident states she has been reporting leaks from her roof for a number of years. In 2021, the landlord carried out cyclical redecoration works to the building, which included a temporary fix of the roof soffits.
- On 14 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report water ingress, which she believed was coming from the roof. She expressed concern about the possible risks from the disrepair to her newborn baby. She contacted the landlord again on 14 May, 15 June, 28 July, 29 August and 28 September 2022. However, she says the landlord only raised a repair after she had reported the matter on 30 September 2023, via a social media platform. The resident chased the repair on 31 October 2022 and, on 4 November 2022 she reported that water was coming through her hallway light. The landlord attended within 4 hours to “make safe”, which involved removing the light fitting.
- On 7 November 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She stated that:
- She had been reporting damage to her roof, resulting in water leaking through her ceiling in several places.
- Not only had the landlord “ignored” the majority of her repair requests, but it had also breached its timescale of 20 working days for non-urgent repairs.
- There was visible damage to the soffits at both the front and rear of the property, potentially causing water to seep through her ceiling.
- The landlord told her it would contact her to arrange an appointment. She chased this up on 31 October 2022 and had still not received a date.
- She had an 8-month-old in the property and the landlord had put her family’s life at risk by allowing water to come through the electrics.
- The soffits were “tacked up” the previous year during the cyclical redecorations and she thought the water would stop leaking through. She had redecorated her property at her own cost. However, the “fixed” soffits had only lasted “a matter of weeks”.
- The landlord needed to urgently put up scaffolding to inspect the roof. She added the landlord should replace her internal light that had been removed during the emergency repair.
- Following a telephone conversation with the resident, the landlord wrote to her on 10 November 2022 to acknowledge her complaint. It stated that it would aim to provide her with a response by 25 November 2022. It added that she should contact its insurance team to discuss the damage caused to her property by the leak. It sent her a holding letter on 24 November 2022. On 26 November 2022, the resident replied to say she was still waiting for repairs to be carried out and that there were new leaks “springing up”.
- On 29 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that, as a shared owner, she should claim through her own home contents insurance for any damage. She replied on the same day to state that the roofing contractor had missed 3 appointments and no scaffolding had been erected. She added that the damage to her property was caused by the landlord’s failure to maintain the external structure, as per her lease. As such, she did not see why she should pay an insurance excess. The landlord wrote back on 30 November 2022 and said that, after having sought further advice, its buildings insurer could cover some repairs but that the resident would need to contact it once the leak had been repaired.
- The landlord contacted the resident on 8 December 2022 to say it needed more time to complete its complaint investigation. The resident replied the next day to advise that the scaffolding was still not up. In response on 14 December 2022, the landlord told the resident that the scaffolding had been due to be erected during the week commencing 5 December 2022. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 29 December 2022. It said:
- It acknowledged that the scaffolding had not gone up as advised but that operatives had been on site on 22 December 2022 to carry out the roof inspection.
- It was confident it was “responding positively” to the repairs following the complaint but it was clear the work had taken too long to progress.
- It was sorry for the frustration that this had caused and hoped its response went some way toward helping make up for the resident’s poor experience.
- As she was a shared owner, she would need to contact her insurer about the internal damage to her home.
- It acknowledged that the service she had received from its complaints team was not in line with its complaints policy.
- It recognised that there was room for improvement in the way it communicated with its residents, particularly regarding repairs.
- Her complaint would be reviewed by the relevant senior managers to highlight the importance of managing expectations and offering reassurance to residents throughout the repairs process.
- It wanted to offer the resident £250 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
- £50 for the delay in acknowledging her complaint.
- £100 for the delays completing her repairs.
- £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
- It is not clear from the records what action, if any, the landlord took after 29 December 2022, However, on 23 May 2023 the resident contacted it to escalate her complaint. A telephone call took place between both parties on 1 June 2023. During this, the resident confirmed that the reason for her escalation request was that:
- There was a lack of communication from the landlord as to when works would take place.
- Scaffolding was supposed to have gone up in May 2023 and there had been a cherry picker on site since December 2022, but no work had started.
- The roof was still leaking and was affecting most rooms, including the living room and her child’s room, where black mould was growing.
- The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 1 June 2023 and then sent a holding letter on 6 July 2023, stating that it hoped to provide a reply by 13 July 2023. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response on 7 July 2023. It said:
- It was sorry for the further difficulties the resident had experienced and for the frustration and upset this had caused.
- Its contractors had confirmed all works to her roof had been completed and it had also completed a mould wash to her home on 20 June 2023.
- It acknowledged that it had not repaired the roof leak in a timely manner and did not communicate with her with any reassurance on how it would repair the leak.
- It wanted to offer an increased amount of £500 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
- £100 for her patience throughout the complaints process.
- £200 for the delays in completing her repairs.
- £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
- On 10 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. She said as a consequence of its failure to carry out essential repairs to the roof, her property required a further mould treatment and redecoration. She stated that this would be costly and time consuming. She added that she had also been left without a light fitting for over 9 months and would be “left out of pocket” to rectify this. The landlord responded on the same day and stated that it would offer her a paint pack “at no further cost” and was happy to cover the cost of arranging for an electrician to reinstate the light.
- As she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns, the resident approached the Ombudsman on 2 February 2024. She stated that the landlord had “promised to carry out proper repairs” but repeatedly failed to do so. She was also unhappy with the level of compensation it had offered and with the landlord’s “refusal” to reimburse her, or carry out repairs to the internal damage caused to her property due to its “neglect”.
Assessment and findings
Policy and legal framework
- The resident’s lease states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing and renewing the load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building including the roof. The landlord is also responsible for keeping the building insured against loss or damage and that it should, whenever required, provide the leaseholder with the insurance policy in the event they may need to make a claim.
- The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure sets out 2 categories of repair. Emergency repairs must be attended to within 4 hours and it must complete a “make safe” repair within 24 hours. For routine repairs, the landlord will ensure an appointment is arranged within 20 working days of the resident reporting the repair.
- The landlord has a damp and mould procedure, which it published in November 2022. It states that, whilst it did not generally hold responsibility for maintaining internal areas within a leasehold property it still provides advice in relation to damp and condensation.
- The landlord’s pre and post inspection policy states that pre-inspections should be carried out in the event of potential damp and mould cases and when investigating recalls and recurring faults. The target time for a surveyor to complete the pre-inspection is within 10 working days of the inspection order date. Having carried out the inspection, the landlord should advise the resident of its findings and explain how it will proceed. Following the inspection, the landlord should confirm its findings and what further works if any will be carried out in a follow-up letter to the resident.
- The landlord has a compensation policy, which awards financial redress in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused, and time and trouble incurred for failures in service provision. The policy does not quote any specific amounts. It also states that, if there is a failure to meet its service contracts, it may make an ex-gratia payment in recognition of the failure.
- The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2 stage process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 workings days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If a resident escalates their complaint to stage 2, the landlord will review its stage 1 response and consider any additional information the resident provides. It will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days. If the landlord requires more time to complete either a stage 1 or 2 investigation, it will explain this to the resident and will give a revised response date, which will be no later than a further 10 working days.
Scope of investigation
- The resident has stated that the damp caused by the leaks into her property has negatively impacted her and her child’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments but the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
- The resident has also advised that she has been reporting water ingress to the landlord since 2010. The resident’s comments in relation to this are not disputed. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from April 2022 onwards. The records indicate that this was the beginning of the events that led to the resident raising a formal complaint. Any references to events prior to this are made to provide context.
Water ingress from the roof
- The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident has experienced distress over a lengthy period of time, while reporting leaks into her property. We recognise how upsetting and uncomfortable it must have been, especially while looking after a young child. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This assessment will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
- The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect this, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
- From the evidence that is available, it appears that the resident’s initial report of water ingress was on 14 April 2022. The landlord completed the roof works on 7 July 2023. As such, it took it around 14 months to complete the necessary roof repairs.
- The evidence demonstrates that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial report in April 2022 and her subsequent contacts between May and September 2022. The records show that it was not until she reported the leak for the seventh time, on 30 September 2022, that the landlord raised the repair. That it took the landlord 6 months to raise a repair in response to the resident’s report demonstrates a significant failure in its repair reporting system. This would have caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience in having to repeatedly prompt the landlord to meet its repair obligations. The landlord had been put on notice of the disrepair and it was inappropriate that it failed to inspect the areas or start the process of completing repairs. This was despite the resident chasing the landlord through late October and early November 2022. The evidence suggests that the landlord only took action after being prompted by the resident raising her complaint. It should not have taken the resident complaining to compel it to progress the repair. This was a failing.
- The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that operatives had attended on 22 December 2022 to carry out a roof inspection. As the landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports, it is unclear what findings or recommendations contractors had made following visits to the site. Furthermore, there is no indication the landlord had considered undertaking an assessment of the risks posed by the leaks to the resident and her property. Given the history of roof leaks, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have arranged a comprehensive roof survey, completed a risk assessment and kept a record of both. That the landlord failed to take any of these measures meant it was unable to establish the full extent of the work that was required, at an earlier stage.
- The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving a leak is not always straightforward and can be a case of ruling out causes until the source is identified. Where a process of elimination is required, the Ombudsman would expect to see an action plan developed by the landlord. This should be overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source is identified at the earliest opportunity, and a prompt remedy is then implemented. The landlord was unable to demonstrate that it had taken appropriate and timely action to find the cause of the leak and to then complete a repair. This was a failure.
- The landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it made reasonable efforts to provide the resident with updates, estimated completion dates or to keep her regularly informed. There is evidence both contractors and the landlord had given her dates when work would start, only for the work to be postponed without any reason given. For example, the landlord told the resident works would start on 10 November 2022. However, when she contacted the landlord on 26 November 2022 for an update, it advised her that scaffolding would be erected either from 21 November 2022 or 5 December 2022. No explanation for the delay was provided. This demonstrates poor communication between the landlord and its contractor and a failure to properly manage the resident’s expectations. It is unclear why the landlord could not have completed the works sooner and it has not provided any records to explain the reasons for the delays. This is evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord.
- The records indicate that the resident had repeatedly contacted the landlord for updates on the repair. Furthermore, despite repeated requests, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for details of works that had taken place. It is evident the landlord consistently failed to respond to the resident’s enquiries and that contractors had failed to attend pre-arranged appointments, without notice. As the resident had to take time off work to allow access, the instances of non-attendance would have caused the resident considerable inconvenience. Records show the resident had to make significant efforts to try and progress the outstanding repairs, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations.
- Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the records show that in December 2022 a cherry picker had been brought on site to enable contractors to inspect the roof. However, despite the resident reporting on 17 January 2023 that the roof was still leaking, there is no evidence the landlord took any further action between then and when the resident escalated her complaint on 23 May 2023. The landlord provided no proper explanation for the lack of progress during this 6 month period.
- There is no evidence that between December 2022 and May 2023 the landlord had made any contact with its contractor to monitor the repair or take any steps to ensure the works were going ahead as planned. The landlord’s poor communication, its failure to adopt a customer focussed approach and lack of contract monitoring would have added to the resident’s uncertainty. This would have impacted on her confidence that any works would take place, or if the leaks would be resolved, and caused her significant frustration and distress as a result.
- It is accepted that contractors might not be able to attend appointments due to capacity issues or periods where they are busy and their services are therefore stretched. However, landlords should ensure they are appropriately resourced and that service agreements with contractors enable it to complete repairs within a reasonable time. Furthermore, given most of the rooms in the house were affected by water ingress, and there was a small child in the property, it should have made adequate efforts to prioritise the works. That the landlord could not demonstrate it had properly recognised the extent of the delays, or that it took reasonable steps to ensure repairs were completed within a reasonable amount of time was a failing.
- The Service recognises the landlord may have had some challenges with its contractors. However, its lack of any effective repair management meant that it failed to ensure that the repair was proactively responded to. Furthermore, there are no records to show the landlord considered appointing a specific team to take overall responsibility for co-ordinating the repair. The failure to do so would have contributed to its overall failure in responding to the resident’s reports of water ingress, and the subsequent excessive delays in completing the necessary works.
- When the resident reported black mould in her child’s bedroom on 1 June 2023, the landlord arranged to carry out a mould wash on 20 June 2023. While this was a prompt response, there is no evidence the landlord provided any advice on how to deal with this in the interim, or that it sent the resident any written information about mould management. The importance of this is highlighted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. The lack of guidance provided to the resident was a shortcoming in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure that it has measures in place to provide residents with information about dealing with damp and mould when such reports are received.
- It is noted that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report of water coming through a light fitting on 4 November. The evidence shows that it attended to “make safe” within 4 hours. This was in accordance with the landlord’s policy timescales. It was also appropriate that, following completion of the roof repair, it offered to meet the cost of hiring an electrician to put the light back into service. However, in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about replacing the original light fitting. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. That it failed to do so in this instance was a failing
- The records show that the landlord provided conflicting advice to the resident about claiming for damage to her property. It told her a number of times that she should claim on her own insurance. However, it also advised her that she should approach itsinsurer once the repairs were completed. This demonstrates a lack of proper understanding by staff on what residents should do should they need to claim for damagewhich they believe has been caused or contributed to, by the landlord’s response to a report of a repair. The landlord should have proper guidance in place for residents who need to claim on its insurance so that staff can advise them accordingly. We have made an order for the landlord to give the resident details on how she can claim on its insurance, and a recommendation for it to review its guidance to staff with regard to providing the correct advice on making claims.
- The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
- In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays in completing the repair and for its inadequate communication. It also offered £250 compensation in its stage 1 response, which it increased to £500 at stage 2, in recognition of the delays, distress and inconvenience and poor complaint handling. Furthermore, it carried out a mould wash and offered the resident a paint pack, following completion of the repair, to assist with internal redecorations. It is noted however that it failed to acknowledge its lack of response to the resident’s initial reports or to offer any proper explanation for the delays.
- Although its attempts to put things right are noted, the landlord’s offer of redress falls short of fully recognising the impact on the resident. This is specifically in view of the time it took to complete the roof repair and its failure to communicate adequately throughout the time the resident was waiting for the repair to take place. This left the resident and her young child to live in a property that suffered from the effects of water ingress for longer than was necessary. The landlord had also failed to take sufficient account of the time and trouble the resident took to chase the outstanding repairs, or to fully acknowledge what had gone wrong. Due to the impact these cumulative failings would have had on the residents, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration and will order further redress.
- The resident has paid approximately £441 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period the repair was outstanding. The Ombudsman can reasonably consider this to have started in April 2022, which was when the resident first reported leaks in her property. It is also the start of the period on which this investigation focused. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time the landlord took to attend to the repair (14 months). It also takes into account the impact of the resulting damp on the resident’s enjoyment of most of the property, comprising of both bedrooms, living room and hallway. Factoring in the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £926 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 15% of the total rent during the period in question. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account. The Ombudsman will order an additional amount for distress and inconvenience.
Complaint
- The landlord took 53 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and 46 working days to respond at stage 2. Although it sent the resident holding letters, with revised response dates, it failed to send them in a timely manner. For example, it sent the resident a stage 1 holding letter 15 working days after the resident made her complaint. Given the landlord’s timescale for responding to stage 1 complaints is 10 working days, it should have advised the resident of the delay before this period had elapsed. Similarly, although it issued a stage 2 holding letter, this was 45 working days following the escalation request. This means it had failed to properly notify the resident of a delay in its response. Furthermore, although its policy states that any delays should not exceed a further 10 working days, both responses were issued far beyond this timescale. It is evident the landlord did not make reasonable efforts to respond in a timely manner or to keep the resident adequately informed, which was a departure from its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This amounts to maladministration.
Record keeping
- The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that “it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion date”’. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
- The evidence that the landlord provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs and complaints to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
- The landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports or a proper repair log, showing when the repair was reported and details of any visits by operatives. Contemporaneous records of telephone calls and written correspondence between the landlord and resident were also very limited. The landlord provided no records of correspondence with its contractor during the period when the resident was waiting for repairs to be completed. The evidence of poor record keeping would have contributed to the landlord’s poor repairs management and its failure in putting together a coherent plan to identify the cause of the problem and complete the required repair within a reasonable amount of time. It would have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication and lack of updates. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in this case.
- We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023, we published our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommends of our spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence that it has self-assessed already.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress from the roof.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
- Apologise to the resident, in line with the Service’s Remedies Guidance.
- Pay the resident the revised compensation amount of £1,476, which is calculated as follows:
- £926 in recognition of the delay in completing the roof repair and the impact on the resident’s enjoyment of the property for 14 months.
- £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.
- £200 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
- This replaces the landlord’s offer of £500 that it made in its stage 2 response.
- The resident has said that, following the works completed on 7 July 2023, her property continues to experience water ingress and that further works are required in order to rectify this. As such, the landlord is to contact the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to provide a schedule for when it will carry out any outstanding works. If the resident is not satisfied with how these works are carried out, she may then submit a further complaint to the landlord, and then approach the Ombudsman again if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide the resident with details on how she can claim on its own insurance for internal damage to her property. The landlord to provide proof to the Ombudsman that this has been done within the abovementioned timescale.
- This investigation has identified a number of issues relating to the liaison between the landlord and its own contractor. The landlord may have since addressed these matters with the contractor through its contract management processes. If so, the landlord is asked to provide confirmation to the Ombudsman, within 8 weeks of receiving this determination, that the issues have been addressed and robust contract monitoring arrangements are in place with this contractor. If the landlord is yet to raise these issues with this contractor, it should now do so and provide confirmation to the Ombudsman of the actions taken within 8 weeks, as above.
Recommendations
- The landlord to review its complaint training to ensure that, when holding letters are sent out, they are issued before the end of the 10 or 20 working days respectively, to ensure reasonable notice of delays.
- The landlord to review its guidance to staff with regard to providing the correct advice on making claims on its insurance.