Hyde Housing Association Limited (202412881)

Background

1. The resident complained, with the help of a representative, about the length of time taken to repair the communal boiler. He also complained about a missed appointment. The landlord apologised and offered compensation. He said this did not reflect the stress and inconvenience he felt.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the communal boiler.
   2. A missed appointment.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident, which resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to the communal boiler.
4. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident, which resolves the complaint about its handling of the missed appointment.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The residentraised issues about the communal boiler. The landlord’s contractor tried to fix the boiler, but the repairs did not last as the issues reoccurred. The landlordeventually raised a job to replace the pump in the boiler and gave him temporary heaters in the interim. The repair was completed in line with its repairs policy and the landlord offered reasonable redress for the impact caused to the resident.
7. The contractor did not attend a booked appointment. The resident had to chase the appointment, and the landlord could not confirm whether an appointment had been made. It apologised and offered compensation. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for the impact caused to the resident.
8. The landlord delayed its response at stage 1 of its complaints process. It offered £200 compensation for its complaint handling. However, it refused to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at

9. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident said there had been issues with the heating and hot water since they moved into the flat and told us about problems from 2013. However, there is no evidence he raised a formal complaint which has completed the landlord’s complaints process about the other heating and hot water issues or that he was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the resident’s reports of heating and hot water and the boiler replacement made prior to November 2023.

What we have looked at

10. The resident said the landlord knew the pump for the boiler needed to be replaced in November 2023. The landlord did not order the pump for the boiler until 24 February 2024, after attempts to restore the heating and hot water failed. When we asked the landlord when they became aware the pump needed replacing, they did not give a date. We have seen emails from the resident requesting updates, but we have not seen evidence that the pump needed replacing before 24 February 2024. Because the evidence does not show when the landlord first became aware of the fault, we cannot determine whether the pump for the boiler should have been ordered in November 2023. If the landlord was aware in November 2023, it would have been reasonable to order the pump for the boiler at that time. Therefore, we have not made any recommendations on this aspect of the complaint.
11. A new pump for the boiler was ordered on 24 February 2024, and the resident was given temporary heaters. The repair was completed on 6 March 2024. Which is in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
12. Our remedies guidance, published on our website, states that where we identify maladministration, we may award compensation over £100. The landlord offered the resident £280 in its stage 1 response. This sum is in line with what we would award to recognise the stress and inconvenience experienced, and the time and trouble he took to pursue the issue. We recommend that the landlord re-offer the resident the £280 compensation offered in its stage 1 complaint response if this has not already been paid to him.
13. As part of its offer, the landlord included £30 compensation for the cost of temporary heaters and using the kettle for 20 days. However, it does not appear to have discussed this amount with the resident. It is difficult, therefore, for us to determine whether this is reasonable. The landlord could have asked for evidence of increased gas bills between January 2024 and March 2024. This was a missed opportunity, however the total compensation offered was reasonable. Therefore, we are not going to make any further recommendations to cover any increased heating bill costs.
14. In summary, we are satisfied that the landlord has made an offer of redress that resolves the complaint about the handling of repairs to the communal boiler. The repair was completed in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord has apologised, and it has offered compensation that we consider reasonable.

15. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. It includes the loss of heating and water as an emergency repair. It says follow on works are to be completed as routine repairs within 20 working days. However, the landlord’s contractor said that they would only attend emergency appointments within 24 hours. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, and some appointments were not attended when they should have been. As the landlord is responsible for its contractor’s actions, it should have explained the 4-hour emergency attendance requirement to the contractor.
16. The resident contacted the landlord because the heating and the hot water was not working in the flat. It said that its contractor would attend on 20 February 2024. Its policy says it does not offer appointments for emergency repairs as it will just attend them. The landlord has provided the email from the contractor saying they would aim to attend on 20 February 2024, but they told him that they could not confirm this. He waited all day, but the contractor did not attend. This was not in line with its repairs policy as the contractor should have attended within 4 hours.
17. The landlord provided a repairs log which did not contain reports about the communal boiler, heating, or hot water. Because staff had to rely on emails to the contractor instead of a central repair record, this gap likely contributed to the missed appointment and inconsistent communications about whether the appointment had been booked.
18. The resident said the landlord regularly missed appointments. He found it confusing and said the landlord confirmed 3 times that the appointment was due on 20 February 2024. After he chased the missed appointment, it could not confirm that it had been set. The contractor said an appointment was not set for this day. The landlord later said an appointment had been set but did not provide proof of this when the resident requested it.
19. Although the landlord apologised and offered compensation in line with our guidance remedies, its records were poor, and it could not say whether an appointment had been made. The records show that the contractor was confused about the resident’s tenure type and believed he was a leaseholder. This could have contributed to the missed appointment.
20. The landlord offered the resident £125 for distress and inconvenience, customer effort and poor record keeping. This is in line with our remedies guidance, and we recommend the landlord re-offer the compensation offered in its stage 1 response if it has not already done so.
21. Overall, we are satisfied that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of the missed appointment. Although it would have been frustrating for the resident to wait in for an appointment that was not attended, the landlord has apologised and offered compensation which is reasonable. We recommend that the landlord provide its repairs staff with training on accurate record keeping and its repairs policy.

22. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), published on our website, sets out our expectations for landlord’s complaint handling. The Code states that landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Landlord’s must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, of acknowledging the complaint. The Code states if landlord’s need more time to investigate a complaint, any extension must not exceed 10 working days at stage 1, or 20 working days, at stage 2.
23. The landlord issued both of its stage 1 responses on 18 April 2024 which was outside the timeframe set out in its complaint policy. It offered the resident £200 compensation made up of £100 for its complaint handling for each response. This was reasonable given the delays he experienced.
24. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. The landlord would not progress the case to stage 2 without further information. This is not in line with the Code which says residents do not need to explain their reasons for escalating their complaint.
25. The landlord refused to respond at stage 2 of its process. This is because it did not think the resident had given enough information on why they wanted to escalate the complaint. This was also not in line with the Code. It should have provided him with a stage 2 response.
26. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling because it did not escalate the resident’s complaint when requested. We order the landlord to offer compensation of £100 for the complaint handling at stage 2 of its process. This is in addition to the £200 already offered in its stage 1 responses.

Learning

27. The contractor did not follow its repairs policy when attendingrepairs to the communal boiler. We recommend the landlord updates the contractor with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. It could not confirm whether an appointment had been raised which left the resident waiting all day for no one to attend. It has since provided emails to the contractor confirming the appointment date. The initial inability to confirm the booking demonstrates a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Knowledge information management (Communication)

29. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. Both stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses were delayed. Its contractor did not keep him updated about appointments or progress.