From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202224789)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224789

Hyde Housing Association Limited

29 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. balcony door repairs.
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a flat. She has occupied the property since July 2021.
  2. In July 2021, the resident reported the lock on the balcony door was not working and there were issues opening and closing the door. On 14 September 2022, the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the balcony door repairs, in which she said:
    1. contractors had attended to repair the door in July and August 2021 but did not have the correct part to properly fix the door mechanism.
    2. she was told that the issue had been logged and the landlord would contact her to arrange to complete the repair. The landlord did not contact her, and so she chased it in May 2022.
    3. the landlord carried out further repairs appointments in July 2022 and an operative advised that a new door could be fitted, but she heard nothing further from the landlord about the repair.
    4. in order to resolve the complaint, the landlord should fit a new door as soon as possible and pay compensation.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 31 October 2022. It stated a replacement door had been requested by its subcontractor which was due to arrive within 10 weeks. The landlord said the subcontractor would contact the resident to schedule an appointment once the door had arrived. It apologised for the service the resident had received and for the inconvenience caused.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 23 February 2023. She stated that the landlord had failed to complete the repair in the 10-week timeframe given. The resident said that the situation had been ongoing since she moved in.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 March 2023, in which it said:
    1. it did not complete the repairs when it said it would and failed to communicate with the resident to provide reassurance on how it would rectify the issue.
    2. the job to replace the door was raised with its contractor however, since the job was raised, the landlord had changed contractors. It said this was the cause of the delay in completing the works.
    3. the new contractor inspected the door on 27 January 2023 and completed the repairs on 3 March 2023.
    4. there was a delay in acknowledging the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
    5. it offered the resident £300 compensation, made up as:
      1. £50 for the delay in escalating complaint.
      2. £50 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaints process.
      3. £100 for the delays in completing repairs.
      4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  6. On 25 September 2023, the resident confirmed that she wanted the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. On 18 October 2023, the resident said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response about the handling of the repair and the associated complaint handling. She said she had recently reported a different repair and had encountered some of the same issues again, which led her to believe the landlord had not changed its practices to improve repairs. On 13 October 2023, the resident stated that contractors broke the blind on her balcony door during a repairs appointment in 2021 and she was still waiting for the landlord to respond to her regarding this matter.
  7. On 9 June 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman that the compensation offered did not reflect the amount of time and stress experienced. She said that the landlord should increase the amount of compensation offered and also pay compensation for the broken blind.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. On 17 March 2023 the resident reported that the contractor who attended in August 2021 had broken the blind on her balcony door. The landlord asked if the resident had any evidence to support this was done by a contractor. The resident responded on 18 April 2023 and attached photographs which she stated showed the blinds before and after the operative attended. The landlord did not address this matter in its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. As the matter was not considered by the landlord in its final complaint response, we are unable to consider this as part of this investigation. However, we have made a recommendation below for the landlord to consider whether additional compensation should be paid to the resident in recognition of her reports of damage to the blind.

The landlord’s handling of balcony door repairs.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to routine repairs within 20 working days.
  2. The resident reported the balcony door repairs in July 2021. The landlord has provided some records of repairs appointments that took place prior to February 2023, but the evidence does not detail the findings of the appointments or what repairs were carried out. This has impacted our ability to review what repairs took place during each visit, and was a failing by the landlord to provide all of the relevant evidence. The landlord should ensure it maintains and provides comprehensive evidence of repairs to the Ombudsman.
  3. The resident informed us that the repairs issue was initially that the balcony door would not open. In her complaint, she said repairs were carried out in August 2021 but operatives were unable to fix the door mechanism properly. She said that she could open the door as a result of the repairs, but the window in the balcony door could no longer be opened. This meant she did not have a functioning window in her bedroom.
  4. The resident said the landlord did not arrange any further repairs appointments to fix the window in the months following this. The resident chased the landlord in May 2022 and visits took place in July 2022. The resident stated that an operative advised her that a new door could be fitted. However, she said she received no further response from the landlord to progress the repairs until she raised her complaint in September 2022.
  5. The landlord’s new contractor repaired the issue in March 2023. This indicates a significant delay of outside of the 20-day timescale stipulated in its repairs policy. This was a failing by the landlord to rectify the repair in an adequate timeframe. Although some repairs appointments took place during this time, the issue was not resolved and it is evident that long periods of time elapsed during which the landlord took no action. The landlord’s communication with the resident during this time was poor, and she was required to chase the landlord on several occasions.
  6. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the unreasonable delays and poor communication regarding the repairs. It found that the delay following the stage 1 response was due to a change in contractor. However, it did not comment on why the failings prior to the stage 1 response had occurred. 
  7. It is evident that the resident experienced inconvenience due to the delays in repairing the balcony door, and she incurred significant time and trouble chasing the landlord regarding the repairs. The landlord made efforts to put things right by offering the resident £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused and delays in completing the repair.
  8. The landlord’s compensation policy that was in place at the time states it would assess whether there had been a low, medium or major impact of a delay in delivering a service. The policy states that it will award up to £250 compensation in cases where there had been medium impact. Medium impact is assessed as instances where the landlord has failed to meet required standards, including repeated failures by the landlord to address the shortcoming of a low impact event.
  9. As stated above, the repairs information is limited, and we do not have evidence that the landlord had been made aware of the window repair prior to the resident reporting this in May 2022. However, we acknowledge that the resident said she had been informed that the repair had been logged in August 2021. It is evident that there was a delay in the landlord completing the window repair after the resident raised it in May 2022. Taking these factors into account, the amount of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable to reflect the delay in the landlord completing the repair and was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

 

 

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure states a complaints officer will formally acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. The procedure states it will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 14 September 2022 and the landlord issued the stage 1 response on 31 October 2022. It is unclear what date the landlord formally acknowledged the complaint. However, the response was 13 working days more than the 15 days permitted for acknowledging the complaint and responding at stage 1. This was a failing by the landlord to adhere to the timeframes stipulated.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 January 2023, and she contacted the Ombudsman on 7 February 2023 to report that the landlord had not acknowledged her complaint. The resident stated that the landlord acknowledged the escalation on 23 February 2023. The landlord wrote to her on 16 March 2023 confirming it had escalated the complaint and it issued the stage 2 response on 27 March 2023. As such, the landlord sent the stage 2 response 30 days in excess of the 25-working day timeframe for acknowledging and responding to stage 2 complaints, and therefore did not act in line with its complaints policy.
  4. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling. The resident experienced inconvenience due to the delays at both stages of the complaints process. We consider that the amount of compensation offered by the landlord was sufficient to remedy the failings identified. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the handling of balcony door repairs satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint handling failing satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that:
    1. if it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 offered at stage 2. The finding of reasonable redress has been made based on this payment being made to the resident.
    2. the landlord should consider whether to offer additional compensation to the resident in recognition of her reports that operatives broke the blind on the balcony door.
    3. the landlord should review its handling of the repairs, particularly prior to the stage 1 response, and assess whether measures can be put in place to improve how it deals with repairs.
    4. the landlord should conduct staff training on the importance of keeping clear and accessible records of repairs.