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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202229500)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229500

Hyde Housing Association Limited

7 March 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 landlords:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs at the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom terraced house. The landlord is aware of a health vulnerability in the household but it was unable to state the household member or their health condition.
  2. The resident’s daughter raised the complaint on her mother’s behalf. We will refer to her as ‘the resident’ for the purposes of this report.
  3. The landlord states the resident complained on 19 August 2022. The resident says she originally complained by telephone on or around 16 May 2022. She says the landlord gave 661754 as the complaint reference number but never responded.
  4. The resident said the household had no hot water between 27 April 2022 to 16 May 2022. This was due to the landlord’s delays to fix the property’s boiler. She said there had been poor communication, missed appointments, and engineers attending without the correct parts. She said their kettle broke due to overuse boiling hot water for washing. She also raised issues with work to the property’s kitchen flooring, bathroom, and garden fence.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 September 2022 and sent its stage 1 response on 26 September 2022. It said it:
    1. attended on 12 May 2022 and confirmed the boiler remained under warranty
    2. accepted the resident had experienced delays with the boiler warranty appointment
    3. accepted it should have communicated better with the resident and its contractor
    4. had investigated kitchen repair concerns on 16 August 2022 and reattended on 22 August 2022 to replace plinths in the kitchen
    5. had returned on 24 August 2022 to inspect the kitchen floor and confirmed work to replace it on 3 November 2022
    6. was satisfied it had replaced the plinths without delay but apologised for the other repair delays
    7. apologised that she had considered a fencing operative rude and would ensure it raised this matter with the entire fencing team
    8. was sorry and offered £150 compensation
  6. The resident chased the landlord 6 times between 26 September 2022 to 6 February 2023. She expressed dissatisfaction with its complaint response and thought it should reimburse half of the household’s electricity bill for May 2022. She calculated this to be £53.35 for the two weeks without a boiler.
  7. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 28 March 2023. It increased its offer of compensation to £350 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its repair and complaint delays. It apologised that she had needed to chase it for a response.
  8. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. She did not believe the landlord had offered redress to fully recognise the time and trouble taken to progress matters.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs at the property

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas and heating water. This includes boilers. The landlord acknowledges this obligation in its responsive repairs procedure.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure says it would respond to an emergency repair within 4 hours and complete a ‘make safe’ repair within 24 hours. It states it would raise and respond to any subsequent follow on work within 20 working days
  3. The resident’s complaint described the inconvenience of the loss of hot water. The landlord’s records show there were issues with the property’s boiler from on or around 13 April 2022. It is therefore unclear why its stage 1 complaint response only refers to a warranty appointment on 12 May 2022. This did not demonstrate a thorough investigation or recognition of the effects boiler issues may have had on the household.
  4. The resident does not dispute the landlord arranged boiler work under warranty through the manufacturer and its contractor. However, she says the engineer turned the boiler off between 27 April 2022 to 16 May 2022. Therefore, leaving the household with a recorded health vulnerability, without hot water for 19 calendar days. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
  5. Within the landlord’s internal communications on 7 October 2022 there is evidence of a conversation about the boiler repair date. The landlord states “we would not have a record or control over the repairs carried out” by the manufacturer. This did not demonstrate effective monitoring of the resident’s situation. Nor is there evidence the landlord contacted the resident to offer any additional support due to the recorded vulnerabilities.
  6. The landlord does not dispute that its communication with the resident and the contractor was poor. It is therefore reasonable that the resident described experiencing time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience due to the repeat appointment failures.
  7. The landlord apologised, provided a voucher for a new kettle, and offered compensation. However, it did not demonstrate giving due regard to the effects of these service failures on a household with a record vulnerability. Nor what steps it would take to prevent something similar happening again.
  8. Within the complaint recorded by the landlord, the resident referred to other repairs. It is unclear if she raised these in her alleged original telephone complaint. However, she said it “would be a bonus” if it could resolve the other issues.
  9. The evidence shows the landlord attended and completed repairs to the kitchen plinths within its responsive repair time. It inspected the kitchen flooring within 3 working days of the complaint and agreed to install new flooring on 3 November 2022.
  10. It was reasonable in the circumstances for it to consider her other repair requests. However, it did not complete the flooring until 14 November 2022 which was later than its 20 working day responsive repair time. While this was not consistent with its repair policy, there is evidence the landlord recorded difficulties contacting and arranging a suitable appointment with the resident due to her availability.
  11. On 26 September 2022 the resident raised concerns about the property’s dividing garden fence. She said contractors working on the neighbour’s side had damaged hers, had been rude, and stopped work midway through. She described this affecting her ability to keep her dog secure.
  12. The landlord’s stage 1 response demonstrated an intention to learn by saying it would speak to all fencing staff about her reports of rude behaviour. And it said it was taking steps to ensure all service areas understood the effects on resident’s when something went wrong. This showed the landlord’s desire to learn from outcomes.
  13. While the landlord’s internal communication on 7 October 2022 considered it had completed the fence work, the resident disputes this. There is evidence she referred to this as on going until February 2023. We have seen no evidence the landlord checked on her situation between these dates or communicated its intended action plan or repair timescales.
  14. The landlord’s record’s show work to complete a mould wash and stain block to the resident’s bathroom on 8 July 2022. It also recorded replacing an extractor fan. Its communication records on 7 October 2022 state it completed this work on 18 August 2022. This was approximately 18 working days later than its repair times. We have not identified any explanation for these delays.
  15. In contact with us in February 2025, the resident said mould issues in the bathroom remained ongoing. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to carry out an inspection.
  16. The landlord accepts that it could have communicated better with the resident. Its stage 2 response demonstrated empathy for the repair delays and the distress and inconvenience caused. It was reasonable in the circumstances for it to acknowledge it had not taken this into account during its stage 1 investigation. It said sorry that the resident had needed to chase it for repair updates and reassurance.
  17. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide a voucher for the resident to replace her kettle. This demonstrated its efforts to return her to the position she was in before the boiler problems. It also demonstrated it accepted the resident’s assessment of events and increased its offer of compensation for its response to her repairs to £250.
  18. When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
  19. The landlord has shown it accepted its service fell short. It apologised and increased its offer of compensation due to the distress and inconvenience caused. Its offer of £250 was consistent with our remedies guidance. We would therefore have made a finding of maladministration but for the steps it took to put things right. Therefore, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. We are satisfied that the landlord’s complaints procedure was appropriate and in line with the expectations of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022.
  3. The Code states landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint. There are exceptions when landlords may provide an explanation to the resident having a clear timeframe for when they will receive a response. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
  4. The resident says she complained in May 2022. This was 3-months before the landlord states it received it on 19 August 2022.
  5. However, the resident names a member of the landlord’s staff, provides a complaint reference, and the name of the heating contractor the landlord said it would pass the work to. She describes it taking “almost a year” for the landlord to resolve the complaint on 28 March 2023. This is consistent with her position that she complained in May 2022. It is therefore unclear why the landlord has been unable to provide a record of the resident’s earlier complaint or its attempts to respond to it.
  6. Considering the landlord’s position that 19 August 2022 was the complaint date, it sent its stage 1 acknowledgement 13 working days late on 14 September 2022. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy.
  7. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 26 September 2022. This was within 10 working days of its acknowledgement letter and consistent with its complaints policy. However, it remains unclear whether it had failed to respond to her alleged earlier complaint which works out as approximately 80 working days before.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised for its poor communication, the delays to complete repairs, and it offered £50 for its complaint handling delays. Its response said it was unable to consider matters older than 6 months but acknowledged the resident had raised matters before. This was dismissive of the resident’s situation and raises further uncertainty how the landlord treated the resident’s alleged earlier complaint.
  9. The Code states that it must progress a complaint to stage 2 of its procedure if it does not resolve all or part of the stage 1 to the resident’s satisfaction. In response to our request for evidence, the landlord advised it had no record of a stage 2 escalation request.
  10. The evidence shows the resident expressed dissatisfaction and chased the landlord for an update about the repairs and complaint on at least 6 occasions. The first being on 26 September 2022. It was therefore reasonable that this was her escalation request. Therefore, the landlord should have sent its stage 2 response by 24 October 2022, which it failed to do.
  11. Furthermore, we have identified no evidence to show the landlord agreed any extension date with the resident in advance. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 March 2023, which was at least 128 working days later. This was not consistent with its complaints policy or the Code. This did not demonstrate the landlord had learned since its stage 1 response.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 response accepted that it had not previously taken into account the distress and inconvenience its delays had caused. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord considered the resident’s feedback regarding the timeline of events. It increased its offer of compensation for complaint handling to £100.
  13. However, the Code says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. While there is evidence it completed some bathroom work, it is unclear why neither of its responses acknowledged or responded to the resident’s reported bathroom issues. This was not consistent with the Code.
  14. When there are failings by the landlord, as there is in this case, it is our role to consider an appropriate level of redress to put things right. The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised and recognised it had not considered the distress and inconvenience of its service failures. However, the evidence indicates a complaints process of almost a year. This is an unreasonable amount of time.
  15. Furthermore, the landlord failed to demonstrate how it gave due regard to the household’s record vulnerabilities. Nor did its responses address the reports of bathroom issues or demonstrate learning to prevent similar complaint handling failures happening again.
  16. Based on our findings, we find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. We order it to pay the resident £200 to put things right. This is consistent with our guidance on remedies where the landlord’s attempts to put things right failed to address the detriment caused to the resident.

Special investigation

  1. In November 2023 the Ombudsman began a special investigation report on the landlord. During the investigation we found repeat failings. This included issues with its repairs and complaint handling. We required the landlord to change its approach, and we made recommendations based on our findings. So, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made within our special report. The landlord should consider whether there are any issues arising from this case that require further action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident £200 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord can deduct the £100 offered at stage 2 of its ICP if already paid.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord reoffers the resident £250 offered at stage 2 of its ICP for its handling of the resident’s repairs, if not already paid.
  2. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to arrange an appointment for a suitably qualified professional to inspect the reported bathroom concerns.
  3. We recommend that the landlord ensures that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the circumstances of the resident’s household.