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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202001615)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001615

Hyde Housing Association Limited

8 December 2020


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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. reports of pest infestation;
    2. requests for a replacement fence;
    3. requests for tree maintenance in his rear garden;
    4. associated formal complaint.

Summary

  1. The resident raised concerns about pest control and the condition of his fence with the landlord. Pest controllers visited the property on 11 and 18 July 2019 and the records show that it placed poisoned bait by an inspection cover and carried out rat treatment in communal areas.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 7 January 2020, stating that, in Spring 2018, he had reported a rodent infestation that he had later discovered was rats. He said that his property had also suffered from flies which he was concerned were due to dead rats under the floorboards. A complaint was also made about poor maintenance of the wooden fence in the resident’s front garden. The resident stated that he had asked for this to be replaced by an iron fence and, following a visit by the landlord in January 2019, he had been advised that this would take place, but no action had been taken. He also complained about lack of maintenance to trees in his back garden that were damaging the rear brick wall. He said that he was informed these would be removed but no action had been taken.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 January 2020, advising that it would discuss the complaint with the resident and would aim to provide its formal Stage One response by 7 February 2020. Pest control contractors visited the property again on 20 January 2020 and carried out cockroach treatment.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 February 2020 apologising for the delay in responding to his complaint and advising that a full complaint response should be provided by 21 February 2020, but he would be informed if more time was needed.
  5. The landlord then visited the property and carried out an inspection, concluding that all mouse or rat holes had been blocked within the communal areas and flats. Its records of 7 February 2020 showed that the resident was advised that the source of the rodent problem was a cracked water pipe that was the responsibility of Thames Water and such issues were outside the landlord’s remit. However, its records showed that landlord staff had made contact with Thames Water to see what action might be taken. The resident was also advised that his fence would be secured through repair but a replacement with an iron fence would be classed as an improvement that would require further authorisation.
  6. On 18 February 2020 the resident complained that the pest issue was still not resolved. He stated that rats had eaten the poisoned baits and were dying under the floorboards with the result that residents now had an infestation of flies. He advised that he had reported the matter to the local authority Safety & Environment department. As the situation had been ongoing since April 2018 and was still not resolved he believed he should be financially compensated.
  7. In the landlord’s response of 19 February 2020, it confirmed that more time was needed to investigate his complaint and so the previous date of 21 February 2020 would not be met. A new response date of 18 March 2020 was provided. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 19 March 2020 apologising for the delay in providing the Stage One response and confirming that a response would now be provided by 2 April 2020.
  8. On 23 March 2020 concerns about the broken water pipe were referred to the Environmental Health Department which advised that no action could be taken against Thames Water as they were a statutory body. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 March 2020 confirming that it had been advised that Thames Water had cancelled works at the property originally scheduled for 10 March 2020. The landlord advised that its staff would continue to monitor pest control issues and take remedial action but again confirmed that the source of the rodent problem appeared to originate with Thames Water.
  9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 March 2020 stating that, due to Covid-19 restrictions, its staff were only able to provide essential services. As a result, there would be a further delay in responding to the complaint and the revised complaint resolution date was now 28 April 2020.It then wrote to the resident on 15 April 2020 informing him of a further delay and advising that the deadline for responding to his complaint had been extended by a further three weeks.
  10. On 28 April 2020 Thames Water advised the landlord that, due to Covid-19 restrictions, it was not carrying out any works at the resident’s property. The landlord advised Thames Water that the resident was being caused environmental health issues and requested that the issue be escalated.
  11. Following a discussion with the resident, the landlord issued its Stage One complaint response on 7 May 2020. It confirmed that the cause of rodents accessing the property was a cracked water pipe that was the responsibility of Thames Water. The response acknowledged delays by the landlord in taking pest control action and offered compensation of £100 (£50 for the delays experienced, £25 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £25 for poor communication). It went on to confirm that it would not be able to replace the wooden fence with an iron fence, but it would carry out maintenance on the fence to restore it to a satisfactory condition. It advised that the trees in the resident’s back garden were protected and that tree works were subject to priority concerning urgency and diseased trees. Its tree contractor would therefore inspect and make recommendations on the appropriate action to take in relation to the trees.
  12. Thames Water contacted the landlord on 13 May 2020 and advised that it had been unable to gain access to the property in order to carry out works as residents at another flat within the building declined to provide access as their children were home from school. Thames Water placed their job on hold for four weeks and contacted the landlord again on 22 June 2020 to advise that access had still not yet been obtained.
  13. On 4 June 2020 the resident requested that his complaint be escalated to Stage Two, raising concerns about arrangements for the fencing repair being made without the repairs staff first viewing it and discussing the nature of the repairs with him.
  14. In the landlord’s Stage Two response of 25 June 2020, it confirmed that the decision on the complaint would not be altered and that it considered the £100 compensation to be appropriate. It noted that its contractors had attended to repair the fence, but the resident declined this as he believed it should be replaced. It again confirmed that it would repair the fence but would not be completely replacing it. It then reiterated that any works to the protected trees in the rear garden would only be carried out on receipt of recommendations from its specialist contractors.
  15. The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 June 2020 expressing his dissatisfaction. He complained that it had failed to carry out required maintenance to the exterior of his property and that he disagreed with its decision to repair only two thirds of the fence when he had been advised that the whole fence needed replacing.
  16. The landlord raised a formal complaint with Thames Water on 20 July 2020, when it advised that its resident had reported a rodent infestation to the local environmental health team. It noted that, as the freeholder it was its responsibility to investigate and identify any defect, and it had therefore instructed a CCTV survey. Its contractors reported that the drain in one of the flats had collapsed and this drain belonged to Thames Water. The landlord stated that it had attempted to get Thames Water to take responsibility and repair the drain for over a year without success and requested that it now take action.
  17. The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 July 2020 confirming that a fencing company had inspected his property and its view was that the fence should be replaced. He stated that he could not afford the replacement and expressed his view that it was the landlord’s responsibility. He asked for the fence to be removed altogether and for the landlord’s contractor to discuss any proposed repair with him before commencing works. However, he confirmed that he had accepted the landlord’s compensation offer and queried when the payment would be issued. 
  18. In the landlord’s response of 4 August 2020, it confirmed that the compensation payment would be progressed and that its contractors would make arrangements for the fencing repair. On 12 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord requesting that the repair should not be carried out without the contractor first looking at the fence.
  19. On 18 August 2020 the landlord’s repair team confirmed that Thames Water had advised that all required works had been completed and checked in respect of the collapsed drain at another flat in the building.
  20. On 4 October 2020 the resident confirmed to this Service that the issue regarding pest control had been resolved. He also confirmed that contractors had attended to carry out fence works and that the landlord had awarded him £100 compensation that he considered to be in respect of the fence which he had accepted. The resident confirmed that his complaint about the trees had not yet been resolved. 

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that:
    1. repairs are classified as emergency repairs, anytime repairs (to suit the customer) and major repairs.
    2. Emergency repairs will be attended to within 4 hours in order to make the property safe with any follow-on works completed within 24 hours. These include any repairs needed to address any issues that threaten the immediate health, safety or security of the resident, such as the complete loss of gas, water, electric or heating; blocked boiler flues; and insecure doors or windows.
    3. Anytime repairs are any responsive repair that is not an emergency repair. These will be attended to within 20 working days. Major repairs include non-emergency major or complex works including refurbishment works carried out as part of the landlord’s stock investment works.
  2. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that:
    1. Stage One complaints are responded to by an investigating manager from the team providing the service to which the complaint relates. A full response should be received within 20 working days.
    2. Stage Two consists of senior management review where a Head of Service or a Director will review the Stage One response. The Stage Two response should be sent within 20 working days of the request to escalate from Stage One.
  3. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that:
    1. compensation can be paid at the discretion of service managers and senior managers. It may be paid in instances of service failure, in recognition of the time and trouble taken by the customer to make their complaint, in recognition of distress and inconvenience experienced by the customer, and to reflect where a customer has suffered a loss because of a service failure by the landlord;
    2. For failure to complete repairs within required timescales compensation up to a maximum of £50 will be paid. Where there is a failure to meet the landlord’s service contracts an ex gratia payment of £25 may be made (this excludes missed appointments);
    3. Compensation for delay may also be made for a delay in delivering a service which is the landlord’s responsibility. This is broken down into: low impact of the delay up to £100, medium impact of the delay £250, and major impact of the delay £500;
    4. Compensation for distress and inconvenience may also be paid where the resident has been caused stress, anxiety, frustration, uncertainty, inconvenience, worry or outrage. The compensation calculation should take into account the severity, length of time suffered and the number of people affected (e.g. one person or a whole family) and vulnerability. This is classified as low impact of the delay up to £100, medium impact of the delay £250, and major impact of the delay with injury to health £500;
    5. the landlord will also consider inconvenience that a complainant has experienced in resolving their complaint and considers time and trouble compensation as being different from delay or distress. In assessing whether time and trouble compensation is payable relevant factors could include: the length of time, including response times by the landlord taken to deal with the problem and the complaint, the time and effort required from the complainant, any specific difficulty experienced by the complainant in dealing with the landlord, the degree of inadequacy of the landlord’s response to letters, phone calls or visits, whether there has been an element of wilful action on the part of the landlord that has resulted in poor management of the complaint. Payment for time and trouble is up to a maximum of £50;
    6. compensation shall not be paid where the loss of an amenity is the result of a problem beyond its control as landlord, for example localised or national power cuts; repairs being carried out independently by utility companies; blocked street sewers; or waiting for parts that are on order to fix an appliance as part of the repair, provided reasonable alternatives are put in place in the interim.

Assessment

Pest infestation

  1. Under the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the resident’s property including drains, gutters and external pipes. Further, the landlord does undertake to carry out pest control activities in its properties where necessary. As a result, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation and to take appropriate steps to resolve any issues it identified.
  2. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord initially carried out various pest control activities to address the resident’s reports in accordance with its policies. This included laying bait, carrying out rat treatments in communal areas, treating for cockroaches, and blocking potential access points. These actions were appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord was taking the reports seriously. 
  3. The landlord’s records show that it then identified that the source of the pest problem was the responsibility of a third party, Thames Water, and so works were required to address this outside of its responsive pest control. It is clear that, where the source of the problem is beyond the landlord’s control, it will not be responsible for resolving the issue and is not required to pay compensation arising as a result of the issue (see paragraph 26.6 above). In this case, it does not appear to be disputed that Thames Water was responsible for repairing the cracked drain, so the landlord was limited in the extent to which it could resolve the problem for the resident.
  4. Despite this, the landlord took all reasonable steps to make contact with Thames Water to pursue the matter on behalf of the resident, even going so far as to make a complaint about its inaction. Again, this demonstrated that the landlord was proactive in taking practical steps to get the necessary repairs done and to resolve the resident’s concerns about ongoing pest infestations. Whilst there was a delay in the issue being resolved, this was not due to any failure or delay on the part of the landlord, so no redress was required in that regard.

Fence repairs

  1. The landlord identified that the fence was not a boundary fence and, as a result, it fell outside of its responsibilities under the tenancy agreement and repairs policy. Despite this, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and agreed to carry out maintenance to the fence in order to improve the situation. This was a reasonable response and demonstrated that the landlord was exercising its discretion to go beyond its strict repairing obligations.
  2. The resident and landlord disagreed on the need to replace the wooden fence with an iron one. However, the landlord was entitled to conclude that a repair could be carried out rather than a replacement and to follow the judgment of its staff in determining what was an appropriate repair. The Ombudsman encourages social landlords to make the most effective use of their limited resources and it will often be the case that, where an adequate repair is possible, this will be more cost effective and favourable than a complete replacement.
  3. However, having agreed to undertake the maintenance works, the landlord should then have done so in a timely manner, and within the 20-working day timeframe specified in it repairs policy (see paragraph 24.3 above). Instead, the evidence indicates that the issue of the fence was raised by the resident in January 2020 and not resolved until September 2020, some eight months later. It is accepted that some periods of delay were caused by the resident refusing to have repair works done rather than the fence being replaced entirely and asking for any works orders to be delayed until the fence was inspected. However, these delays aside, it still took the landlord too long to confirm its position and carry out the works which it felt were appropriate.
  4. It was therefore right for the landlord to consider making an offer of redress to recognize the unacceptable delay in the fencing issue being resolved. By doing so, the landlord demonstrated that it was mindful of the terms of its Compensation Policy (see paragraph 26 above) and the offer of £100 was proportionate to the identified service failings. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure.  The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress, as it has done in this case.

Tree maintenance

  1. The resident’s concerns about tree maintenance were first raised on 7 January 2020 and the landlord did not provide a response on this point until 7 May 2020, four months later. Whilst the landlord was in contact with the resident about the other, more pressing, issues during this period, this does not negate the need for it to properly address all the points of complaint and to take appropriate action in that regard. Further, although the landlord did ultimately address the tree maintenance issue in its Stage 1 complaint response, this letter indicated that no practical steps had been taken to move the matter forward at that time.
  2. The Stage 2 response issued on 25 June 2020 again identified that the resident’s complaint about trees was still pending a survey and recommendations before a decision could be taken on what action was required. This was five months after the resident raised his initial complaint and no clear timescale was provided for resolving the matter. Further, it is clear from the evidence provided that the resident was still waiting on the survey and an inspection several months later, in October 2020.
  3. While Covid-19 concerns may be a factor, the resident was caused anxiety and inconvenience in not knowing when this matter might be resolved or the timescales for a decision once the survey has been completed. Therefore, despite external restrictions on what the landlord could practically do to resolve the substantive issue, it could have done more to keep the resident updated, manage his expectations, and reassure him that steps would be taken as soon as government regulations allowed.

Complaints handling

  1. There was failure in the handling of the resident’s complaint. The Stage One response was issued in May 2020, five months after the resident raised his complaint, and significantly outside the 20-working day timescale stated in the Complaints Policy (see paragraph 25 above). While the resident was written to several times to inform him that there would be delays in the landlord responding, it did not adequately explain the reasons for this. Further, the resident was caused unnecessary anxiety and inconvenience in pursuing his complaint and was put to time and trouble in doing so over this five month period.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution principles indicate that landlords’ complaints handling procedures should be user focused and demonstrate that their purpose is to resolve disputes and restore the residents’ position in the event of anything going wrong. The landlord has partially upheld the complaint and offered the resident compensation of £100 which he accepted. This was an appropriate remedy for the identified delays and inconvenience caused by the complaint about fencing repairs, but it did not go far enough to respond to the tree maintenance issue or recognize the impact of its failure to do so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the pest infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the fence repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the:
    1. tree maintenance;
    2. associated formal complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. pay the resident £100 compensation (£50 for the delay in the tree survey and £50 for its poor handling of the formal complaint);
    2. if it has not done so already, arrange an inspection by a tree specialist and report to the resident on the outcomes of the inspection and any recommended actions.