Hyde Housing Association Limited (202121168)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121168

Hyde Housing Association Limited

19 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs to the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a joint tenant. The landlord assigned the tenancy to the resident in August 1982. The property is a three-bedroom house where the resident lives with his partner.
The resident has restricted mobility and is a wheelchair user. He also has a hearing impairment.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states:
1. Contractors are responsible for ensuring that works are completed to the agreed standards and comply with contractual arrangements.
2. Any time repairs would be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy states:
1. Its complaints officer would formally acknowledge the customer’s complaint within two working days.
2. It aimed to respond to the stage one formal complaint investigation, within ten working days of receiving the complaint. If it needed extra time to complete the investigation, it would explain this to the customer and give a date for its response, which would be no later than an additional ten working days.
3. It would provide its stage two response within 20 working days, and in exceptional circumstances, it may take up to an additional ten working days. If it needed an extension, it would tell the customer as soon as possible and give a date for the decision.
4. It will offer compensation where:
  1. It has not delivered a service to the advertised standard.
  2. In recognition of the time and trouble taken by the customer to make their complaint.
  3. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the customer.

Summary of Events

The resident requested several repairs to his property from the landlord. These included repairs to:
1. The wet room on 7 April 2021.
2. The guttering on 17 June 2021.
3. The kitchen wall due to damp on 30 September 2021.
4. The seals around his French doors due to water entering when it rained on 1 October 2021.
On 8 October 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord about the service he had received. He stated he raised an informal complaint to the landlord in August 2021, which was not acknowledged, and he wanted the landlord to investigate it. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of this complaint.
On 14 October 2021, the landlord booked a joint inspection with its operative and contractors for 10 am on 19 October 2021 to inspect the resident’s kitchen and bathroom for outstanding repairs.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 19 October 2021, expressing his dissatisfaction with the progress of the repairs. The landlord apologised for the delay in acknowledging the complaint and for the resident’s poor experience. The landlord explained to the resident, it could only look back up to six-month based on the time limit in its complaints policy. The landlord explained the issues faced by the resident and said its operative would attend the resident’s property on 20 October 2021, with two of its contractor’s operatives, to inspect what other works it needed to complete. It said it would check the details of the resident’s complaint, and investigate what had happened, to help with identifying the delay with the repairs, and outstanding tasks. The landlord explained, it aimed to respond by 9 November 2021, which was outside its normal ten working days timescale within its policy.
On 1 November 2021, the landlord’s repair log shows works were arranged for its contractor to renew all the seals around the double-glazed boundary door for the resident’s French doors. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 3 November 2021 it was awaiting the operative’s report.
The landlord then provided its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 8 November 2021. The landlord acknowledged there had been missed appointments and repairs had been outstanding since April 2021. It acknowledged its contractors’ and operatives’ failings, such as attending with incorrect tools for the required job. It also acknowledged its communication failures and that there had been delays throughout the complaints process. It said its operative would be the point of contact for the outstanding works. The landlord stated:
1. It agreed that the repairs could have been completed a lot quicker and that it could have communicated more effectively with the resident.
2. It agreed to uphold the resident’s complaint and offered him an apology.
3. It offered the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the service the resident had received.
4. It would contact the resident by 12 November 2021, to organise the works aside from the internal remedial works, which it will schedule once the areas were dry.
5. It had discussed the resident’s complaint during contract meetings with the contractor to highlight the delays. It reminded them of the service and communication it expected them to provide its customers.
6. It reminded its staff of the correct process for an operative being unexpectedly off work.
7. In response to the wait time on the telephone to its contractors, its contractors were looking to increase the call centre team, to allow it to meet the increased demand for incoming calls, to avoid wait times such as the one the resident experienced.
8. It provided feedback to the operative’s team leader about continuity of service should one of its operatives be unexpectedly off.
9. To make things right it was committed to:
  1. Undertake a drain survey at the resident’s property.
  2. Clear the resident’s guttering.
  3. Renew the seals on the resident’s French doors.
  4. Supply a freestanding shower screen for the wet room, and if this solution did not work, it would look for other solutions.
  5. Hack off three coarse tiles and renew trimming of flooring in the wet room.
  6. Complete any internal remedial works, which were its responsibility once the areas were dry.
On 23 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging his stage two request and stated it would give a full reply and decision about the complaint by 21 December 2021. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s stage two request. The resident also telephoned the landlord on the same day about the drain inspection. The landlord’s records show a note was made on 29 November 2021 for the resident’s request to be investigated, as the resident was waiting for the landlord’s contractor to do the necessary work.
The landlord’s contractors conducted the drain survey on 25 November 2021. The survey found that the drains were clear; however, one of the manhole covers was stuck, so they could not inspect it.
On 23 December 2021, the landlord telephoned the resident to inform him it was still chasing its contractor. The contractor believed the guttering was to be completed on 22 December 2021. The resident said no one had contacted him, and no one attended his property on 22 December 2021.
On 14 January 2022, the landlord rang the resident and confirmed it had requested works to be raised and scheduled by 17 January 2022. The resident stated he would also like the shower seat replaced and was still dissatisfied with the shower screen situation. The landlord said it would speak with the operative, but it had stated previously the shower screen would be tried, and then they would review the situation if it was not working.
On 17 January 2022, entries were made on the landlord’s repairs log for the supply and fitting of a shower screen and for three rows of tiles to be hacked off and renewed. The landlord also contacted the resident and advised if the shower screen wasn’t suitable, it would look at it again. The landlord stated it would ask the operative to describe what it would look like. The landlord confirmed it had also requested a new shower seat for the resident.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 20 January 2022. It stated:
1. It had completed some of the required work, however, it was concerned to hear of the further delays and that the remaining works were still outstanding.
2. Due to the delays, it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two, and this was what it would be investigating. It agreed the repairs could have been completed much sooner and upheld the resident’s complaint, and again apologised to the resident.
3. The resident had refused the initial £150 compensation offered at stage one, but it wanted to offer the resident a further £200 in compensation for the service failures. It committed to completing the outstanding works by the end of February 2022.
4. It apologised again for the length of the delays in completing the required work.
5. It highlighted its commitments from the stage one response and explained what had occurred and provided the resident a point of contact.
6. It stated that it had cleared the guttering and repaired the French door seals in early January 2022, but it apologised for its delays and poor communication that occurred before it completed the works.
The landlord’s contractors emailed it on 25 January 2022 and asked the landlord to note the quote around the drainage works. The contractors told the landlord to advise if the works should be raised and advised its team to do so once the landlord approved the quote. The contractor contacted the resident on 2 February 2022 and said it was awaiting the landlord’s confirmation on the quote for the job.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 February 2022 and said he would like grey tiles fitted. The landlord stated it would check and let the resident know if this was possible. The contractor informed the resident it would not be fitting grey tiles, even if he bought them. It also emailed the landlord’s property service stating it had advised the resident it could not change the tiles to grey as there was nothing wrong with them. The landlord contacted the resident and explained, it would not be installing grey tiles. However, the resident said the operative who was there had left and not done anything, and the tiling work remained outstanding and needed to be completed. The resident was also concerned it wouldn’t get booked in and there were other outstanding works.
The landlord held an internal conversation on 11 February 2022 after speaking with the resident. It explained:
1. Contact needed to be made with the resident, and it was concerned it would not meet the commitment of completing all outstanding repairs by the end of February.
2. The resident’s shower screen and shower seat appointment had been delayed until 28 February 2022 and it was not sure why the contractor did not complete the work on 26 January 2022. Its contractor had said on the work order that it was a standing shower seat, and the current one was attached to the wall and needed to be replaced like for like. It is unclear whether the landlord explained this to the resident.
3. The work on the tiling had yet to be completed and it needed to rebook the works as soon as possible. It also stated, although the resident wanted grey tiles, he was told on the day that could not be done. It was unsure why the contractor had closed the work order.
4. The outside drain still needed to be sorted, and it thought the contractor was waiting for the quote to be approved.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 16 February 2022. He informed the landlord he had been in contact with the Ombudsman. The resident told the landlord that nobody had contacted him regarding the works. The landlord emailed internally the same day and explained it had spoken with the resident, and he had not heard from anyone. It asked for the matter to be highlighted with the contractor to ensure the works were all scheduled and addressed and that it kept the resident informed. Following this, the contractor was asked to raise the required works to stop water going underneath the flooring, remove any existing loose polysafe or other non-slip sheet flooring, clean off the flooring/ bed under, refix the flooring with adhesive, all cutting, labours, upstands and clean off.
The resident raised another complaint on 25 February 2022 about how the landlord handled the contractor’s poor actions. The resident stated that despite meetings, the situation was the same. He questioned why the landlord was not dealing with the contractor’s behaviour. The resident said he could not hide his anger and frustration at the situation. The landlord escalated this internally on the same day, asking for the resident’s complaint to be investigated.
On 2 March 2022, the landlord communicated internally, stating it had sent its stage two response to the resident. It could not afford any more delays. It asked for contact to be made with the resident and the contractor to ensure all works were raised and scheduled.
This service contacted the resident and landlord on 05 April 2023 for more information around the repairs and the resident’s complaint. The landlord provided a copy of a further response it provided to the resident dated 17 April 2023. In the response the landlord highlighted some works were still outstanding and it had offered a further £450 in compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs to the resident’s property.

Since the resident referred the case to the Ombudsman, the landlord has advised that in addition to the £350 compensation offered in its stage two response, due to ongoing delays with repairs, it has offered the resident a further £450 in compensation. This means that the landlord has offered the resident a total of £800 in compensation. Whilst this goes a long way in rectifying the landlord’s failings, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it is unacceptable that the repairs subject to the complaint appear to still be ongoing. As repairs have remained outstanding between April 2021 and April 2023 the Ombudsman believes the above compensation offered is not proportionate given that the repairs are still ongoing after two years.

Repairs to the guttering and French doors.

At the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, two of the required repairs had been completed. These were the repairs to clear the resident’s guttering and the replacement seals to the resident’s French doors. From the evidence provided, there were seven- and three-month delays in completing these repairs. The landlord did not complete any of the repairs that are part of this investigation within the 20-day timescale stated in its policy. The landlord did however acknowledge these delays, apologised, and made an offer of compensation which in the Ombudsman’s opinion is a positive action.

Repairs to the wet room, kitchen wall, shower screen and shower seat

The letter provided by the landlord dated 17 April 2023, confirmed that repairs to the resident’s wet room, kitchen wall, shower seat and screen currently remain outstanding.
The landlord does not appear to have considered the impact and inconvenience caused by the repeated delays on a vulnerable resident, especially around the wet room and shower seat repairs. This was unsatisfactory, this service would expect landlords to consider the impact significant delays in repairs can have on residents with disabilities and to take steps to reduce delays as promptly as possible. In this case it meant the resident was left living with a substandard wet room for almost two years.
The evidence also suggests the landlord’s delays in repairing the resident’s guttering led to an issue of dampness to the resident’s kitchen walls. The landlord acknowledged instances where its contractors’ attended jobs at the resident’s property with incorrect tools and instances of missed appointments. Although these issues were acknowledged by the landlord, from the evidence provided, no reasons appear to have been given for these failings to the resident. These are all matters within the landlord’s control and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the failure to provide reasons shows poor customer service, as it would have been reasonable for explanations to be provided to the resident around these issues.
The resident was also inconvenienced by the landlord’s lack of communication as he repeatedly had to chase the progress of repairs. This, in one instance, saw him waiting to speak to the landlord’s contractors for an hour over the telephone. It would have been best practice for the landlord to provide regular updates to the resident around the repairs. The landlord should have been proactive in ensuring its contractors completed the necessary tasks, attended appointments, and communicated appropriately with the resident.
Although the Ombudsman understands additional works might have been required, such as checking the resident’s drains. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain the additional delays to the resident to manage his expectations. The evidence does not support that the landlord did this. Furthermore, the overall length of the delays by the landlord amounted to over two years. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is an unreasonable amount of time, this would have had a significant impact on the resident as the landlord’s delays appear to have caused distress, uncertainty, and inconvenience to the resident. This is especially the case around the repairs to the wet room as it would have had a detrimental effect on a vulnerable resident with mobility restrictions, reliant on the use of the wet room.
Further, the outstanding repairs to the resident’s kitchen wall and wet room would have caused additional worry as the resident was not always aware of what was happening with the repairs. The ongoing works caused continued disruption as they had been outstanding for a long time and required multiple visits to the resident’s home.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident in its stage one and stage two responses for its failings and offered compensation totalling £350. It had raised the issues of delays and communications with its contractors to improve the service provided. However, the Ombudsman believes the compensation offered across the landlord’s responses, did not go far enough to address the inconvenience and distress the landlord’s lack of communication and delays caused the resident. This is because several repairs continue to remain outstanding, past the promised times of completion within the stage two response. The outstanding repairs continue to have an impact such as continued inconvenience and distress on an already vulnerable resident.
The landlord recognised that the required works were still outstanding again in April 2023 and offered additional compensation. Whilst it is positive the landlord has acknowledged its position and increased the offer of compensation, it remains unclear what was stopping the landlord from completing the required repairs. This was another missed opportunity by the landlord to provide the resident with an explanation for the delays in completing the required repairs.
Whilst it is also positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and increased the offer of compensation, it is not clear what prompted the landlord to do so, or why the landlord waited so long to make the increased offer. Although the additional offer goes far in rectifying the situation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this does not go far enough due to the length of time the repairs have been outstanding and the detriment and inconvenience to the vulnerable resident around the use of the facilities. This is then coupled with the time and trouble it has taken the resident to complain to the landlord and await further updates.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there has beenmaladministration by the landlord in handling the repairs to the resident’s property due to its unreasonable delaysand poor communication.

Landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord cannot provide records of the resident’s original complaint in August 2021. It states it has been unable to locate evidence of an informal complaint being raised and logged, but the resident did have three cases raised for which he was chasing an update on repairs. The resident then raised a formal request for this to be investigated on 08 October 2021. It took seven working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. This was five days outside the specified timescales within its complaints and compensation policy.
The landlord provided its stage two response 18 working days, after it said it would, within its stage two acknowledgement letter. The landlord has not offered any evidence to suggest it requested an extension of time from the resident to give its response late, nor that any exceptional circumstances required the need for an extension in line with its policy.
The landlord accepted and apologised to the resident for the delays around the stage one complaint response but does not appear to have acknowledged the further delays at stage two. The resident was already left frustrated with the landlord for delays around the repairs and the delays in communication around the repairs. The delays around the response to his stage two complaint would have added to his ongoing frustration around the landlord’s communication. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been good practice to have informed the resident of the delay to the response to his stage two complaint.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there has been a failure by the landlord in its complaints handling. This is unsatisfactory and will have resulted in uncertainty, inconvenience, and distress to the resident in addition to feeling that his concerns were not being taken seriously.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s delays were outside of the timescales provided for the completion of the required works to the resident’s property and continue to be delayed. The landlord’s communication with the resident also fell below the expected levels. Although the landlord provided a revised offer of compensation in recognition of the outstanding work, with new time frames for completion, in the circumstances, this did not go far enough as the works remained outstanding for a number of years, causing prolonged inconvenience and distress to a vulnerable resident.
The landlord failed to comply with its own policy’s timescales when responding to the resident’s complaints. It provided the resident with a date for the provision of the stage two response and failed to meet this date. It then provided no evidence to show it explained the delay in its response to the resident, or that it asked for an extension of time to be able to provide its response late.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord:
1. Pays the resident compensation of £1300, comprising:
  1. The landlord’s previous offer of £800
  2. £200 for the length of delays, inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.
  3. £200 for the time taken by the resident in chasing updates and for the landlord’s lack of communication.
  4. £100 in compensation for its service failure around the complaints handling.
2. Provide an apology for the failings in the repairs service it provided.
3. Complete an inspection for all outstanding repairs and provide a timeline for completing all outstanding repairs.
4. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the orders no later than four weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Provides communications training to its staff to ensure prompt communication around the provision of updates to residents on repairs. This is to include updates where repairs are identified as being more complicated than anticipated and details of the required works and timelines for completion.