Hyde Housing Association Limited (202209517)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209517

Hyde Housing Association Limited

11 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

The complaint concerns:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in her bathroom.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in third floor, two bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident’s complaint concerned several repair issues at her home. She raised various concerns which included an issue with low water pressure, the location and efficiency of her bathroom ventilation fan, her request to have her bath replaced, and issues with recurring damp and mould. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to these issues.
In final response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that it exceeded a reasonable timeframe to respond the resident’s repair requests and that its service had fallen below its usual standards. It also apologised for its delay in responding to the complaint outside of its expected response time. It said that it had rectified the low water pressure issue. The landlord said that having inspected the resident’s property in November 2022, it had found no evidence of damp and mould in the property. It said that the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen worked well, but said they had not been regularly cleaned. It said it would not replace the bath as this would not be required. It offered to repair the bath enamel and clean the fans on 1 December 2022. It offered the resident £375 compensation. This was £150 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaints process, £75 for the delays in responding to and completing repairs, and £150 for the stress and inconvenience caused as a result.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She did not believe that the fans worked well as she said that issues with damp and mould persisted, and also believed that the fan in the bathroom was too small to provide sufficient ventilation. She wanted the landlord to install newer and bigger fans. She also said that the water pressure had not been rectified and believes that the landlord should replace the bath. The resident also wanted the landlord pay additional compensation for its poor service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident highlighted an issue with a storage cupboard, an issue with her boiler which caused leak damage in her kitchen cupboard, and a roof leak which affected her bathroom and bedroom which occurred following the landlord’s final response.
The Ombudsman is unable to consider the above issues as part of our current investigation because they were not raised to the landlord through its formal complaints process as part of this complaint. This is because the landlord has to be given the chance to respond to any issues before they are brought to the Ombudsman.
The evidence shows that resident raised a complaint with the landlord in December 2022 regarding its response to the roof leak and the storage cupboard issue. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, then she can bring that complaint to this Service once the landlord’s complaints procedure has been completed. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the boiler issue, then she can raise a new complaint to the landlord about the matter.
In its complaint responses, the landlord also responded to a number of repair issues at the resident’s home which included a broken tap, a faulty shower, a blockage and leak in the kitchen sink, and sealant to a wash hand basin. However, the resident has not raised any further specific concerns with those specific repairs with this Service.
In light of the above, this investigation will focus on those issues that formed part of the complaint made, which the resident has clarified are her outstanding concerns, which include damp and mould, her bathroom fan, her request for a replacement bath and a water pressure issue.

Relevant legislation and policies

The landlord has a repairs policy. It highlights that under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property (including drains, gutters and external pipes) and installations in the property for the supply of water, gas and electricity; and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences).
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete non-urgent repairs within twenty working days.

Damp and mould

There is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for repairs to prevent damp and mould issues in the resident’s property. Once on notification of the damp, a landlord is expected to undertake a prompt inspection and carry out any identified repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
In its stage one response in September 2022, the landlord acknowledged that the resident reported an issue with damp and mould in February 2022. This accords with a job in its records which noted that at that time, the resident reported that she had “very bad damp in [her] bedroom and the shower room”. It was apparent from this record that the resident reported that the damp had caused staining to the walls, but it was unclear if this was the result of water staining or mould growth. The landlord also noted that the resident reported that the issue affected her health and was caused by poor air circulation/inadequate ventilation. The corresponding record states that this job was completed on 2 March 2022. However, this record contains no detail in relation to what actions the landlord took, if any, in response to the matter. This has raised concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord also did not explain what action, if any, it had taken in response to the above repair in its initial response. The landlord’s lack of an explanation, added to the lack of detail in the relevant repair record, suggests that the landlord did not have a good understanding of its own repair activities. This was unreasonable, given that in her initial complaint correspondence, the resident said that operatives had attended her property previously to clear damp from the ceiling but that it recurred and had become a yearly occurrence.
The landlord should have realised that the resident’s report of damp was potentially a repeat of historical issues. It should also have considered that it records did not provide robust assessment as to what had been previously been determined to be the source of the damp or if this had been investigated. In light of this, it should have arranged for a robust damp assessment to be undertaken to establish the source of the damp at the earliest opportunity. However, it was not seen in the evidence that the landlord took any action to inspect the damp and mould situation until November 2022. This unreasonably exceeded any measure of a reasonable timeframe to respond to reports of damp and/or mould.
In its final response in November 2022, the landlord said that the above inspection did not identify “visible evidence of damp or mould within the property. Damp meter readings were taken throughout the flats which displayed the walls and ceilings as dry”. Although this accorded with the relevant inspector’s feedback in internal correspondence with the landlord in November 2022, it was not seen in the evidence that this inspector recorded moisture readings nor provided the landlord with these in order to show that the correct methodology was used.
It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its inspector in this instance, without robust evidence to satisfy itself that the damp assessment had been adequately carried out in specific areas that the resident reported had been affected. The landlord’s poor record keeping in this case has prevented this Services ability to determine if the landlord adequately investigated the resident report of damp and mould at the time of its final response. Given the timeframe involved, this was a failing that amounts to maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Bathroom fan issue

In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had contacted it to complain about the bathroom fan in June 2022. However, it did not did not outline what actions it would take in regards to investigating the matter, which was unreasonable given that it had already delayed in responding to the issue by three months. In addition, there was no further evidence of the landlord investigating the matter until two months later, when its inspector attended the resident’s home on 22 November 2022.
Considering the above, it was appropriate that the landlord recognised in its final response, that the resident had had to contact it following it stage one response in order to progress repairs. It appropriately recognised that this necessitated an unreasonable level of involvement by the resident in having to chase it, and in having to seek assistance from this Service to progress matters.
In its final response, the landlord advised the resident that its inspector found that the extractor fans in both the bathroom and kitchen worked “well”, but said that they had not been regularly cleaned. It arranged for the fans to be cleaned on 1 December 2022. This somewhat accorded with the inspector’s feedback. However, the inspector reported that that the fans worked “ok” as opposed to “well”. Its use of the word “ok” in this context suggested that the fans operated, but they that the efficiency of the fans could potentially be improved.
This is supported by the inspector reporting that the fans had not been cleaned and that grease and dust had built up over time. In general, extractor fans can suffer from a build-up of material that may prevent them from working as efficiently as they could, which means that they may be unable to shift as much moisture from the room in which they are located. Therefore, it would have been helpful if the landlord explained how it expected the efficiency of the fans to improve, once they had been cleaned. This may have given the resident greater confidence in its actions.
The inspector also reported that both fans both were seated in good locations to maximise output. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not provide feedback in its complaint responses on the suitability of the location of the bathroom fan, given that this was a particular concern of the resident’s initial complaint. It was also something the resident highlighted in conversation with the landlord shortly prior to the inspection undertaken in November 2022. However, the resident has not raised the location of the bathroom fan as an outstanding concern to this Service, nor has she raised any specific concerns with its response to the kitchen fan. Instead, she has advised this Service that she believes the bathroom fan is too small and wants this to be replaced with a bigger one. As it was not seen in the evidence that the resident raised concerns with the size of the fan as part of this complaint, this Service is unable to comment in that respect as the landlord has not been given the opportunity this aspect.
Ultimately, the landlord offered to clean the bathroom fan, and it is reasonable to assess that it did this in an effort to improve the efficiency of the fan. However, the evidence shows that the resident refused access for this work on 1 December 2022. It is appreciated that the resident believes that this will not improve ventilation in her bathroom, however this Service cannot assess or comment on what repairs would be appropriate. The landlord would need to be given the opportunity to carry this out in the first instance, to subsequently assess if this improved the performance of the fan and then to address any further issues identified if cleaning work had not proved effective. It appears that this would be particularly relevant in this case, given that the resident asserts that issues with damp and mould, in part, are a result of ineffective ventilation in her home. In light of this, a recommendation has been made to the landlord to reiterate this offer.

Water pressure issue

Another of the resident’s outstanding concerns, is that she believes that the landlord has not resolved an issue with low water pressure in her bathroom. The evidence shows that the landlord first raised a job in relation to the matter on 5 August 2022, and recorded that this repair was completed on 5 August 2022. However, the corresponding repair record does not detail when the issue was inspected, what was assessed to be the performance of the water pressure at that time, if any issues were identified, and if so, what remedial work was undertaken to rectify the matter. Lacking the appropriate records, the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it responded appropriately to this repair in August 2022. This was further evidence of the landlord failing to keep appropriate records.
Considering the above, it was unreasonable that the landlord only stated in its initial response that it had checked the water pressure, without giving feedback on the outcome of its investigation. Furthermore, in correspondence with the landlord on 16 September 2022, the resident clearly expressed that she believed the issue had not been resolved at that time as she descried the water pressure as being “terrible”. However, it was not seen in the evidence that the landlord made further investigations into the matter following this, in order to robustly satisfy itself that it was meeting its repair obligations. This was unreasonable.
It was therefore also unreasonable that the landlord subsequently stated in its final response that’s its contractor had confirmed that the water pressure had been rectified and advised the resident to contact it if this was not the case. As mentioned, the resident had already clearly asserted prior to this response that she believed the issue had not been rectified. The landlord’s failure to recognise this has ultimately left this aspect of the resident’s complaint unresolved. This was a failing which undoubtedly would have caused the resident considerable inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the matter. To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to pay additional compensation and to re-inspect the issue.

Replacement bath request

It was not apparent from the evidence when the resident first reported an issue with the condition of her bath. The earliest mention of this repair seen in the evidence, was when the resident contacted this Service in August 2022, and said that her complaint concerned, in part, “chips” in her bath, and that she wanted the landlord to replace the bath as a resolution. This Service communicated this to the landlord the same month.
In its stage one response the landlord said that the resident had refused repairs to the repair the enamel, and that it would not replace the bath. There was no further evidence of specific discussion of this repair issue between both parties, until 22 November 2022, when the landlord noted that having spoken with the resident that day she requested a new bath due to the age of her existing bath. Having inspected the resident’s home on in late November 2022, the landlord’s operative reported that a new bath was not required, but that it would repair the enamel.
In considering the above the landlord was under no obligation to agree to a bath replacement solely because of the age of the bath, as it is only obligated to keep installations it is responsible for repairing, in good working order. Nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation shows that the bath was assessed as being beyond repair. The landlord’s refusal to install a new bath, and its offer to repair the enamel, was therefore reasonable solution in the circumstances. Ultimately, the evidence shows that the resident refused access for this repair to be completed on 1 December 2022, and therefore the landlord has not been given the opportunity to resolve the matter. A recommendation has been made to the landlord to reiterate this offer.

Compensation

This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about how the collective repair issues impacted her health, however we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would need to be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
In its final response, the landlord revised its initial offer of compensation to £375. £150 of this was for the “resident’s patience during the complaint process”. This, in addition to its apologies for its delay in responding to the resident’s initial and stage two complaint, suitably remedied its poor complaint handling. That meant that the remaining £225 of its compensation offer related to its overall delay in responding to the collective repairs and the inconvenience caused. Although this amount was in line with is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which sets out that amounts of £100 to £600 may be awarded in instances where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, it did not take into account the landlord’s continued poor communication and service failure identified by this investigation in relation to the water pressure issue, which is likely to have caused additional inconvenience.
Considering the above, the landlord has ultimately left the resident’s complaint unresolved. To remedy this, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an addition £100 for its response to the water pressure issue. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which sets out that amounts of £50 to £100 may be awarded in instances where the landlord has offered compensation, but it is not quite proportionate to the failing identified by our investigation.
The landlord has also been ordered to pay the resident an additional £200 for its record keeping. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, for instances that will likely have had a significant impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in her bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the additional failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £675 compensation, this is inclusive of the £375 previously offered, if it this has not already been paid.
3. Undertake an inspection, in conjunction with a senior member of staff, of the issues with damp and mould, and the water pressure in the resident’s bathroom, creating a report of the inspection and its findings, and then write to the resident (copying in this Service) confirming what it found, which works if any it intends to complete, and the date that this will be done by. If any of the above repairs have already been inspected/addressed, then it should write to the resident (copying in this Service) to confirm this, and the outcome.
4. Undertake a review of its record keeping practices, copying in this Service, to ensure that it keeps robust records of its inspections and repair activities going forward.
5. Confirm to this service its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

In light of this investigation, the landlord should contact the resident and reiterate its offer to clean her ventilation fans and to repair the enamel to her bath.