Hyde Housing Association Limited (202338742)

Background

1. The resident has experienced leaks in her property since 2016. She previously complained about a leak in 2022. She made a further report of a leak to the landlord on 26 October 2023. The resident has described being without a kitchen light because of the leak for at least 3 and a half months.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of a leak.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a leak.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not meet its repair timescales or communicate appropriately with the resident. While it did try to put things right with an offer of compensation, it did not identify any learning from its failings. The landlord left the resident without a kitchen light for over 3 and a half months. The landlord did not offer any alternatives or acknowledge this in its complaint responses.
5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response outside of the timescales set out in its policy and the Code. However, it apologised and looked to put things right with an offer of compensation.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The resident contacted the landlord to report a leak on 26 October 2023 and 2 November 2023. The landlord did not return the calls or arrange a repair visit following either report. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to routine repairs within 20 working days and provide an efficient, customer‑focused repairs service. The landlord first attended the property on 12 December 2023, which was 33 working days after the initial report. The lack of contact following the resident’s reports did not reflect its stated service standards and was not appropriate in the circumstances.
7. During this period, the resident reported that water was leaking through the kitchen light. The evidence shows she reported this on 20 November 2023. The landlord sent an email asking whether it had already attended to make the electrics safe. It was appropriate for the landlord to check this. However, it should have held records confirming when the emergency repair took place. The evidence indicates the landlord had made the light safe before 27 November 2023, but there is no record showing when this occurred. The absence of this information suggests a record‑keeping failure.
8. As the landlord had disconnected the light, it had left the resident without lighting in her kitchen. The resident advised us on 10 March 2024 that her kitchen remained without a light. There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action after disconnecting the light. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider providing an alternative light source or to explain what interim arrangements were available. There is no evidence it did so or communicated with the resident about this issue. The resident was without a kitchen light for at least 3 and a half months during the winter period.
9. The landlord attended the property to fix the leak on 12 December 2023. The resident reported on 17 December 2023 that the leak remained unresolved. She then attempted to contact the landlord on multiple occasions, without any response from the landlord. The next contact from the landlord was on 22 January 2024, when it asked whether the leak had been resolved. The landlord’s repairs procedure allows a resident to report repairs by telephone, as occurred here. The landlord should have processed the repair as per its repairs policy but it did not do so. It also failed to respond to the resident’s communications or engage with the information she had already provided. This did not reflect a customer‑focused repairs service.
10. The landlord next arranged an appointment for 21 February 2024. This was 44 working days after the resident advised that the leak was ongoing. The landlord did not meet its repair timescales.
11. Identifying and resolving a leak can require more than one visit. However, the landlord was slow to respond to the resident’s reports of a leak. Its communication fell below the standard set out in its policy. The landlord has not demonstrated that it responded appropriately to a reported health and safety concern. It did not provide or discuss an alternative light source with the resident. The resident reported feeling “stressed” and unable to use her kitchen because of the water ingress. The landlord’s delays and poor communication caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
12. The landlord offered the resident £600 compensation. We find this to be proportionate to the identified failings and the impact on the resident. However, the landlord’s complaint responses did not set out any learning for the repair and communication failings it had identified. Including its failure to address or mention the lack of a kitchen light. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter.
13. In its complaint responses, the landlord noted concerns raised by the resident about its poor communication as part of a complaint she raised in early 2022. The landlord identified that it had again communicated poorly as part of that matter. Therefore, the landlord cannot demonstrate learning as it has repeated similar mistakes as part of this investigation. In light of this and the failings identified, the landlord must include in its apology what it has done and what it is doing to prevent similar failings from happening again.

14. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
15. The landlord has not provided evidence of when the resident submitted both her stage 1 complaint and her stage 2 escalation. This raises further concerns about its record-keeping and affected our ability to investigate timeframes accurately.
16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 20 November 2023. It sent its response 9 working days later, on 1 December 2023. The landlord adhered to the timescales in its policy here.
17. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation on 22 January 2024. It responded to the resident 24 working days later, on 23 February 2024. The landlord did not adhere to the timescales in its policy as the response was delayed by 4 working days.
18. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 response within its timescales. However, it did offer the resident £50 for complaint handling failures and apologised to the resident. We therefore find that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Learning

19. Aside from its complaint responses, the landlord did not provide any evidence it communicated with the resident. The resident has provided records of text messages exchanged with the landlord. We recognise that texting can be a quick and useful tool for the landlord. However, the landlord did not provide evidence of these messages, which suggests there was a potential record keeping issue.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s record‑keeping in this matter was not appropriate. This determination has identified several instances where the landlord could not evidence key actions or decisions. The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s stage 1 complaint or her escalation to stage 2. The resident has also described having to explain what the issue is to operatives each time they visit, suggesting further information management issues.
21. Landlords should keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records. These provide an audit trail and increase a landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems. Inaccurate or incomplete records can result in delayed or inappropriate action or missed opportunities to correct errors.

Communication

22. The landlord has not been able to evidence that it communicated appropriately with the resident during the handling of this matter. The landlord is encouraged to make use of our Centre for Learning, particularly the resources on knowledge and information management, which provide guidance on effective record‑keeping and communication with residents.