Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202206410)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206410

Hyde Housing Association Limited

29 June 2023

 

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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to a fence.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. She entered into a tenancy agreement with her previous landlord in December 2008, and in March 2016 the complex in which the flat is situated was transferred to her current landlord (‘the landlord.’)
  2. The property has a rear garden with wooden fencing that separates the garden from the gardens on both sides. Not long after the transfer, the question of repair responsibilities for the fence arose. The landlord’s policy is that it is responsible for external boundaries around its land, but internal boundaries such as dividing fences are for tenants to maintain. The resident questioned this on the basis that her tenancy agreement with her previous landlord stated that it would keep all boundary walls and fences in good repair.
  3. The landlord referred the issue to its legal team which confirmed it was responsible for such maintenance in 2017. At the end of 2020 / early 2021 the question of repairs responsibility for the fence arose again. The landlord initially disputed responsibility, but then reversed its position following a complaint, and said a note would be put on file to prevent the issue happening again. However, the issue arose for a third time in February 2022, following a storm, and the landlord again disputed responsibility.
  4. On 15 May 2022 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the latest repairs, the stance taken by its staff, and the fact it had provided incorrect information about its obligations. The landlord agreed that it had wrongly stated it was not responsible for the repairs, explaining that its staff applied its policies rather than looking at tenancy agreements, so the discrepancy had not been noticed. The landlord scheduled the repair, agreed to install a higher fence than the existing one, and was apologetic. It offered compensation of £125 which comprised £50 for poor communications and time and trouble; £25 for distress and inconvenience; and £50 for complaint handling failures.
  5. The resident remains dissatisfied with this response. This is because in a previous complaint response the landlord had confirmed it had placed an alert on its system to make its staff aware of this anomaly. However, this had not prevented the resident from being told that the landlord would not carry out the latest repair. Further, having raised the issue on three separate occasions, the resident considers the compensation offered does not reflect her time and trouble or the inconvenience of having to pursue the issue again.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident’s initial concerns dating back to 2016/17 are now historic but will be referred to for context. For the second time the situation arose (2020/2021), the landlord’s repairs handling was examined in a prior complaint to this one. That has been referred to this Service and will be investigated separately. This report will focus on the third time the situation arose in February 2022.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a fence

  1. The resident reported damage to the dividing fence between her property and the neighbouring one on 22 February 2022. This had been caused by a storm on 18 February 2022. The resident reminded the landlord to deal with her report according to her tenancy agreement. Having heard nothing further, she chased the landlord on 8 March 2022 but received no response. Finally on 8 April 2022 she chased the contractor direct by telephone, who referred her back to the landlord and transferred her call.
  2. The resident reports its staff member was insistent that it was not responsible for the repair, and that this was despite her explaining the history of the case. A promise was made, however, that the landlord’s surveyor would be contacted on the issue. By 12 April 2022 (4 days later) the landlord had offered an appointment for its surveyor to visit on 21 April and then 29 April 2022 when the first date was inconvenient. The resident was still not going to be available for the second date but the landlord considered it could access the fence from the neighbour’s side. The replacement of the fencing was then scheduled for 17 June 2022 but due to an issue which will be examined below, it was not concluded until 15 July 2022.
  3. The landlord’s repairs procedure sets out its approach to repairs. It states that non-emergency repairs are categorised as “anytime repairs” and it commits to carrying them out in 20 working days. It states that its call handlers should check whose responsibility the repair is and refer it to another team who will investigate in the event of any “uncertainty”. The procedure notes that sometimes a pre inspection with a surveyor may be required. The landlord’s Pre and Post Inspection Procedure states that this should happen within 10 days of the visit being requested. Neither policy confirms whether the 20 day timescale includes or is additional to this 10 day period.
  4. In light of the above, the resident should have expected the repair to be completed by 22 March 2022, 20 working days from her report on 22 February 2022, and it should not have required a surveyor inspection. Once the resident contacted the landlord by telephone, its handling was appropriate to its policy. It investigated the uncertainty, instructed the surveyor, and arranged a date for their attendance within ten days. However, there was a 6 week delay before this, and the repair ultimately took 16 weeks longer than it should have done. Had the landlord acted in line with the tenancy obligations and given regard to the alert it said it had implemented, the uncertainty, delays and complaint would have been avoided.
  5. At the appointment on 17 June 2022 the contractor was asked to replace the existing 4 foot fence with a 6 foot one. The resident reports that this request was made by neighbours to the surveyor, who told them to raise it with the contractor on the day of the repairs. It is noted, however, that the resident was not available for that appointment. It is reasonable to conclude she did not, therefore, hear this advice herself. The contractor was expecting to replace the fence ‘like for like’ which was reasonable. No further delay can be attributed to the landlord when the appointment had to be rescheduled to 15 July 2022 as a result.
  6. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged that there were service failings, apologised and offered compensation. This investigation therefore considers whether the landlord’s redress put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so, the Ombudsman considers whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles to Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  7. The resident is concerned her fellow tenants are not as tenacious as she is and that some have paid for repairs unnecessarily and unfairly, having been given the wrong information. The resident reports she has assisted them with their complaints and feels the landlord should offer compensation for all of her time and trouble over the years the issue has arisen. The Ombudsman normally investigates complaints that concern a resident’s reports about their own property. We may deviate from this if a complainant is an authorised representative for other individuals’ complaints which exhaust a landlord’s complaints procedure. This is not applicable here and so the resident’s time and trouble assisting other residents is not considered.
  8. The landlord accepted it provided the resident with incorrect information during her report on 8 April 2022 and that this was not acceptable, which was appropriate. However, no explanation for the delay following the initial report has been given or a lack of communication, which resulted in the resident having to chase the repair.
  9. The landlord rightly acknowledged communication issues, but it is not evident that it took steps to prevent such lack of response to repairs reports happening again, which is not entirely satisfactory.
  10. The landlord has confirmed it has placed an alert on its system flagging up the fence issue, and supplies a screenshot showing this although it does not confirm when it was done. Whilst this is reasonable, this only offers redress if it is effective. The evidence suggests it has not been, given the landlord confirmed such an alert was in place in June 2021, before the third instance arose. Some recommendations have therefore been made in respect to this.
  11. The landlord offered £50 for its poor communication and for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter. This seems reasonable given the level of communication and timescales involved in this complaint. The landlord also offered £25 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. It was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation in recognition that the issue had impacted the resident. Taken in isolation, the service failings identified are modest and short lived; the resident suffered no quantifiable financial loss; and it is not evident that delay in fence repairs itself has had a significant impact.
  12. However, the distress caused the resident will have increased with each repeat of the same issue, and her confidence in the landlord’s abilities to deal with the matter appropriately should it arise again will have decreased. In the Ombudsman’s view, the £25 does not go far enough to recognise the frustration that will have been caused the resident from the issue happening on yet another occasion, and therefore an order for this to be increased to £75 has been made below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff

  1. The resident has reported that a staff member she spoke to on 8 April 2022 had a poor attitude and was rude, and she has also reported that the operative who attended on 17 June 2022 was abrupt and rude.
  2. The landlord’s records show that it has discussed both of these contacts with the resident by telephone. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concern about the first contact, and for the second, said that the relevant operative had been spoken to. It apologised for “the disappointing conduct” and agreed that a more positive response to her query about the higher fence had been deserved. In its response to this Service, the landlord confirmed that it had addressed “the staff complaint element” internally, which related to the tone in which the resident was spoken to.
  3. The above shows that the landlord has investigated the two incidents; accepting the resident’s criticism; spoken with those involved; and acknowledged that a better response should have been given. The landlord has acted in accordance with what the Ombudsman would expect to see by acknowledging the complaint and setting out its position, and in the Ombudsman’s view therefore the landlord responded appropriately to this part of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it has a 2 stage complaints procedure. Stage 1 commits the landlord to acknowledging the complaint within 2 working days with a full response within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can request escalation of their complaint to stage 2. A senior manager review should then take place with a response being given within 20 working days.
  2. In this case, the resident made her complaint on 15 May 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge it but on 17 May 2022 it was contacted by this Service, at the resident’s request, and asked to escalate a previous complaint regarding the second instance of fence repairs in 2020/21.
  3. The landlord then reopened the previous complaint, and provided a stage 2 response dated 24 June 2022 which mixed the two complaints and responded to the previous complaint and this current complaint. As this complaint was only addressed in the stage 2 response for the previous complaint, no initial stage 1 response was given to this complaint, and the stage 2 response was also 6 working days out of time. This was inappropriate, as the landlord failed to apply its policy, and deprived the resident the opportunity of escalating this complaint for further consideration within its procedure.
  4. The landlord acknowledged to the resident that it had not applied its complaints procedure properly and offered compensation of £50. However, that offer relates to the handling of both complaints, and the £50 offered for the handling of two complaints does not reasonably remedy the issues identified with this single complaint. An order has therefore been made for a further compensation award of £50, and a recommendation has been made in respect to the issues identified. The handling of the previous complaint will not be considered here, and will be considered separately, as outlined in the scope of investigation above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to a fence.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £175, which comprises:
    1. £125 for the issues identified with its handling of repairs to a fence.
    2. £50 for the issues identified with its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord to review the alert on the resident’s file to ensure this works as intended, and to consider any appropriate action if it does not. As part of this it should carry out a test of the alert to ensure that the alert works appropriately when raising a repair, particularly a fence repair.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above within 4 weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to consider taking steps to ensure that its staff and contractors are aware it may have different repair obligations for the resident’s complex, such as via an alert that appears when raising repairs for any properties at the complex.
  2. The landlord to consider taking steps to ensure that residents at the complex are aware that their tenancy agreements may give it obligations for repairs such as fences.
  3. The landlord to consider investigating if any other residents have paid for fencing repairs which it is responsible for under their tenancy agreement, and to offer reimbursement, if it has not already done so.
  4. The landlord to review its complaint handling to ensure that it handles complaints in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and that initial complaints receive stage 1 complaint responses.