Hyde Housing Association Limited (202440396)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440396

Hyde Housing Association Limited

2 July 2025

Updated 12 September 2025

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 response to the resident’s concerns about a lack of hot water.

Background

The resident has a periodic tenancy at the property. She lives there with her 9 year old son. She informed the landlord and us that she has a personality disorder and functional neurological disorder.
The resident’s immersion tank split in October 2024. A new immersion tank was installed the next day. On 5 November 2024 the resident told the landlord that since the tank had been replaced, water was not getting hot enough.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 14 November 2024. She said that work carried out had not resolved the issue. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 20 November 2024. It apologised for the delay in resolving the issue. It said that work would be carried out the following day and it offered compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 November 2024 as she still had no hot water. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 23 December 2024. It said it had concluded that the resident was choosing not to leave the immersion system on for long enough, and as such the water would not be heated to the required temperature. It offered additional compensation for its complaint handling.
The resident referred her case to us on 9 January 2025 as the matter had not been resolved. She told us in June 2025 that a contractor had fixed the issue in May 2025. The contractor had identified the immersion tank had not been plumbed in properly. She said she had spent 7 months and 1 week without hot water in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has expressed concerns about the impact the situation had on her physical and mental health. We are unable to draw conclusions relating to impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury are matters for a court to decide. A court can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
During her communication with the landlord, the resident raised her concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff. The landlord considered this as a separate complaint. This matter has not completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. As such, this concern cannot be investigated at this stage. This is because the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate complaints and be given the opportunity to put things right if failings have occurred. The resident may pursue this complaint through the landlord’s internal procedure if she chooses to do so.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a lack of hot water

It is not in dispute that the landlord is responsible for the system which supplies hot water to the property. This is reflected in the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy, which details its responsibilities for the property.
The exact date the resident’s immersion tank split is not clear from the correspondence we have been provided with. The case evidence shows it occurred at some point in October 2024. The resident told us that a contractor installed a new immersion tank the day after she had reported the fault. Following this, the resident informed the landlord on 5 November 2024 the water was not getting hot enough since the tank had been replaced.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that having no hot water during winter months is classed as an emergency repair. It says it will attend such repairs within 24 hours. The landlord acted in accordance with this timeframe and a contractor attended within 24 hours to conduct the initial repair. The contractor told the landlord that the top of the immersion heater had been “piped over” so it could not see if the correct sized heater had been installed. However, it advised that all readings were in a normal range.
The resident reiterated to the landlord on 13 November 2024 there was no hot water. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord arranged for a plumber to attend as an emergency within 24 hours. However, we have not been provided with any record of what was identified during this visit or any work undertaken.
The resident submitted a complaint on 14 November 2024. She said the contractor had changed the thermostat and timer but there was still no hot water. We have not been provided with any evidence that the landlord raised another emergency appointment in response to this. We have also not been provided with evidence that the landlord asked the plumber about its findings. As such, the landlord missed an opportunity to understand the possible cause of the situation. It also failed to ascertain if the plumber had checked if the immersion system had generated hot water during the appointment.
The resident told the landlord on 19 November 2024 that her disability was worsening due to “stress”. She explained that she relied on taking baths to manage her pain. Because of the lack of hot water at her property she had to travel to her mother’s house to have a bath.
The landlord was responsive to the information provided by the resident and asked a plumber and the company who had fitted solar panels at the property to attend that afternoon. It appears that part of the system used solar panels to power it. However, we have not been provided with any evidence to show this appointment went ahead or its outcome.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 20 November 2024. It said as follows:
1. It acknowledged the “long-drawn-out process” in respect of the hot water had caused distress and inconvenience. Contractors had attended “multiple times” to try to resolve the issue.
2. It had arranged for a plumber and supervisor to attend on 21 November 2024 to complete works. It acknowledged works should have been completed sooner.
3. As a learning point, it would implement more thorough checks and clearer communication at every step of its repair process.
4. It offered £500 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £100 for the delays in completing the repairs.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience.
5. This compensation would be credited to the resident’s rent account to reduce arrears.
Within this response, the landlord demonstrated it had identified learning from the complaint and offered redress for its failures. It acknowledged it had not resolved the issue and it outlined its plan to do so the following day. However, it did not explain what work would be carried out during this appointment nor did it explain if the cause of the issue had been identified. Analysis of its response shows its solution to try to fix the issue was based on finding the root cause of the lack of hot water and presumably fixing the fault at the subsequent appointment it had said would take place.
We have not been provided with any evidence that the promised inspection took place on 21 November 2024. However around the 21 November 2024 the landlord installed an “iBoost”. This appears to be a thermostat and system controller.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 November 2024 as there was still no hot water. The landlord asked the solar panel company to meet with an electrician to test the system. It advised the contractors of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The date of this inspection was not clear, however, it took place at some point between 23 and 26 November 2024.
On 26 November 2024 the landlord sent an internal email between its teams and said it had attended the property along with contractors. It said as follows:
1. It had offered to set a programme on the iBoost to heat the water. The resident had declined this. The resident had said the issue had been going on for longer than before when the iBoost had been installed.
2. It had offered to have the iBoost removed and put the old programmer back in. The resident had declined this.
3. It had offered to look at the resident’s energy bills to see if she could get a different tariff. This would enable her to heat water overnight at a reduced cost. She had declined this.
4. It had checked the inverter and the “PV was generating”. (PV refers to photovoltaic, i.e solar panels)
5. It had asked a contractor to check the size of the tank rod.
It is clear that the landlord offered options to help the resident to operate the current controller system, or to revert to the previously installed system. In addition the landlord’s attempts to identify the fault appeared to focus on checks that the solar panel system was functioning properly.
Analysis of the landlord’s action show that after it had ruled out problems with how the solar system was working, it focused on operator error, or an assumption that the resident was not leaving the system on for long enough.
Although the landlord’s offer to assist with energy bills was well-meaning, we have not been provided with any evidence that the resident had raised the cost of heating water as a concern. As such, the landlord’s reliance on her not being able to afford to heat the water was not supported by evidence.
The resident reiterated her ongoing concerns to the landlord on 27 November 2024. She also raised other aspects of concern as follows:
1. She said she had 6 visits from the landlord and contractors in the previous week but still had no hot water. Contractors had recommended a gas boiler.
2. The landlord’s complaint handler had not been impartial and a staff member had been “aggressive” when saying she was in arrears. Since this, the landlord had acknowledged her account was not in arrears and had paid the £500 compensation offered to her at stage 1 directly to her.
3. The matter was making her feel suicidal and was having an impact on her physical health.
The landlord’s vulnerability policy says if a resident indicates they are suicidal, the landlord needs to consider if there is an immediate risk and act accordingly. We have not been provided with any evidence that shows the landlord contacted the resident after she had made this disclosure or that it considered a safeguarding referral or details of any risk assessment it made. This was a missed opportunity to discuss the impact of the matter with the resident, support her and provide her with signposting to external agencies if appropriate.
That same day, the landlord sent an internal email between its teams and said the water tank was working correctly. It said if the tank was switched on, the resident would have hot water. It is not clear where the landlord’s assumption that the resident did not have the tank switched on came from. We have not been provided with evidence of this finding from any of the contractor visits. We have also not seen any evidence that the landlord had asked its contractors to test this as a possible cause, such as by leaving it switched on for a period of time and seeing if the system generated hot water.
On 28 November 2024 the landlord summarised its findings in an internal email as follows:
1. A number of contractors had attended. No faults had been found in respect of the water heater.
2. The resident had been put into “fuel poverty” and did not keep the system on as she could no longer use “Economy 7”. As such, there was only a small amount of hot water.
3. The resident had declined to let the contractor change settings on the system, which may have helped. Without the resident keeping the system switched on, it was “stuck in a continuous loop” of trying to resolve the issue.
4. The landlord asked internally if a new gas boiler could be considered.
The evidence shows the landlord’s conclusion relied heavily on the assumption the resident was not using sufficent energy to allow the heater to work. There is no evidence provided which shows the landlord conducted a test which left the system on long enough to prove both that the system was working, and that the resident was not leaving it on long enough to work.
The landlord re-attended the property on 12 December 2024. It concluded again that there was nothing wrong with the water heater and the resident was not leaving the system on for long enough. The landlord noted in an internal email that the resident wanted gas central heating and was using the complaints process to get this. It concluded there was not a repair issue and it would not provide a gas system.
It is not clear if the member of staff who made the notes had expertise in respect to how the installed immersion heater operated. It is also not clear what evidence the member of staff had relied on to come to their conclusion. We have also not been provided with any evidence that the resident asked for a gas system, only that she had said contractors had suggested this as a possible solution. The landlord’s stance was dismissive of the resident’s concerns and was not evidence based. Instead it relied upon assumption. It also showed that possible confirmation bias was affecting its determination, without being backed up by evidence or thorough testing of its conclusion.
The landlord referred the matter to its support team to see if the resident could be helped with energy bills. The resident had raised a concern about not having access to a cheaper rate of energy during off peak times in respect of her heating. Although we have not seen evidence which showed her raise this in respect of the ability to generate hot water through the immersion system, the landlord’s actions were in line with its vulnerability policy, as a way for it to offer additional support to the resident.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 23 December 2024. It said as follows:
1. A number of contractors had attended and no issue had been found with the hot water system.
2. The lack of hot water was due to the system not being on long enough to heat the water.
3. It signposted the resident to its support service for possible help with energy bills.
4. It reoffered £500 compensation for the substantive matter and an additional £50 for complaint handling failures. This would be credited to the resident’s rent account arrears.
The landlord later confirmed that the resident’s account was not in arrears. It explained that its system had shown arrears due to the date the resident’s housing benefit was paid in. The landlord subsequently paid this compensation directly to the resident.
The landlord’s offer of £550 compensation included £50 for self-identified complaint handling failures. We have not been provided with any evidence that the landlord exceeded the timeframes for complaint responses as set out in its complaints procedure. The landlord did not clarify what complaint failure it had identified. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider its complaint handling. As the landlord’s complaint handling did not form part of the resident’s complaint, it has not been considered further.
The landlord’s actions in instructing a number of contractors from different specialities to assess the water tank was the right thing to do. In addition, the landlord can be expected to rely on the findings of its contractors who are experts in their field.
Given the conclusion that the issue was caused by the resident, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to ensure further checks were done to make sure that its blame of the resident was faculty correct and had been evidenced. We have not seen any evidence that contractors left the immersion on for a period of time to check if this had resolved the issue. Such a test would have been straightforward to carry out and would have shown if the resident’s actions were the cause of the issue.
The landlord’s conclusion in part relied on the assumption the resident could not afford to heat the water. However, we have not been provided with evidence that it asked her if this was the case or that it asked her how long she was leaving the system switched on.
The stage 2 response also referred to delayed repairs. However, it is not clear what repairs this referred to or if any works were ever identified as required and carried out. This lack of clarity will have caused frustration to the resident.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the resident told us that a contractor attended in in May 2025 and identified the immersion heater had not been properly plumbed in. Work was subsequently carried out by the landlord and hot water was restored. She had been without a sufficient level of hot water for 7 months and 1 week.
Although the evidence shows the landlord initially acted in a timely manner and instructed a number of contractors to attend, there was a significant error in the diagnosis of the cause of the issue in this case. This had a significant impact on the resident and her son for a prolonged period, particularly in light of the household vulnerabilities. Whilst it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of experts it uses to conduct the work, it ultimately retains responsibility for the the accuracy and efficacy of the work they conduct on its behalf.
The landlord’s failures were compounded by its assumptions the resident was responsible for the system not operating effectively. In light of the evidence that followed, this categorisation resulted in its overall treatment of the resident throughout as being heavy-handed, unsympathetic and inappropriate.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
The total amount of compensation offered in respect of the issues was £550. However, given the effect on the household of having no hot water for over 7 months, the resident’s significant vulnerabilities and the time, trouble and expense she incurred having to go to her mother’s house to access hot water to wash, the compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
This impact and prolonged failures, which included a lack of thorough investigation, the landlord inappropriately blaming the resident, along with the lack of appropriate compensation, leads to a determination of severe maladministration.
To acknowledge the effect of the failures on the resident, we have ordered additional compensation of £2,450. This brings the total compensation for the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a lack of hot water to £3,000. This is in line with the range recommended in our remedies guidance where there were repeated failures, which had a seriously detrimental impact on a resident. Our offer of compensation takes account of the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident of the length of time she was without hot water, the household having to travel to her mother’s to wash, the household vulnerabilities and the landlord blaming the resident for the lack of hot water.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a lack of hot water.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff is to apologise to the resident in writing for the failures in this case.
2. Pay £3,000 compensation directly to the resident to acknowledge the effect of its failures. This amount includes the landlord’s previous offer of £550 compensation. The landlord can deduct this amount if it can provide evidence this has already been paid.