Hyde Housing Association Limited (202451015)

Background

1. The resident complained that birds had nested on her roof and caused damage. She referred the complaint to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of pests and associated repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found reasonable redress about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of pests and associated repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Summary of reasons

The handling of pests and associated repairs

4. The landlord recognised the delays in it completing repairs to prevent the pests and its lack of communication to the resident during that time. It apologised, set out learning, and offered compensation, which we consider was reasonable redress in the circumstances.

The handling of the complaint

5. The landlord recognised the delay in handling the resident’s complaint. It apologised, set out learning, and offered compensation, which we consider was reasonable redress in the circumstances.

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 landlord said it had started repairs to the roof in February 2024. However, there is no further evidence of this which has made it difficult to assess its actions and whether they were in line with its policies and procedures.
7. The landlord inspected the roof, laid mesh on it, and cleaned the gutter within 6 days of the resident’s report of pests. It explained its findings to the resident 17 days after her report. It said it would complete repairs in June 2024 once the birds had left. This was in line with its pest policy to inspect the issue to block entry points to prevent pests, and that it would advise on its next steps where it finds birds nesting.
8. The resident reported again that the pests were nesting in the fascia and soffit. She wanted to know what the landlord would do about this to prevent pests entering the roof. She chased it for a response. The landlord had taken 80 days to respond to the resident’s communication. It explained that it had completed repairs to the roof to block the pests from entering. This was in line with its pest policy to block entry from the pests and its repair policy to explain its findings. However, the delay to respond to her was unreasonable given she had to chase for a response.
9. In the landlord’s complaint response, it recognised the delay and lack of communication about the pest reports and the associated repairs. It apologised for this, offered compensation of £350, and set out learning to prevent it happening again. The landlord inspected the property and found there was no further work it needed to do at that time.
10. The landlords offer of redress and the actions it took to put things right were in line with our dispute resolution principles and our remedies guidance for failures where there had been no permanent impact. It has evidenced that it credited the resident’s rent account with £350 as it said it would do, in line with its compensation policy. We have not made any recommendations given that the payment has been made. We therefore find reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.

11. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. The landlords complaint policy was in line with the timeframes set out in the Code.
12. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 10 working days after the resident raised it and acknowledged the escalation of the complaint 42 working after the resident made it. This was not in line with its complaint policy to acknowledge a complaint and escalation of a complaint within 5 working days. The delays inconvenienced the resident who felt they had to chase the landlord for a response.
13. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in it handling the complaint. It set out learning to prevent it happening again and it made the resident an offer of compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her.
14. The landlord’s offer of redress and the actions it took to put things right were in line with our dispute resolution principles and our remedies guidance, for failures where there had been no permanent impact. It has evidenced that it credited the resident’s rent account with £150 as it said it would do, in line with its compensation policy. We have not made any recommendations given that the payment has been made. We therefore find reasonable redress in its handling of the complaint.

Learning

15. The landlord recognised its failures, set out learning, and offered compensation. This was a positive approach in an attempt to resolve the issue in line with our dispute resolution principles.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report recommends that landlords keep clear records. Landlords who keep accurate records can meet their obligations and provide us with information for a thorough investigation. The landlord’s pest reports and repair records were unclear at times. This, at times, impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

17. Our Attitudes, Respect and Rights Spotlight report recommends that landlords provide proactive updates to residents, especially where there are delays. The landlord had not proactively updated the resident about the substantive issue and the complaint, which likely contributed to their distress and inconvenience when expecting a response.