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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202324421)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324421

Hyde Housing Association Limited

23 May 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. Repairs to the property following a fire.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a flat in a low-rise block. She has lived at the property with her partner since September 2019.
  2. On 15 October 2021 a fire started on the balcony, causing the windows and door leading to the balcony to shatter. The fire caused smoke damage inside the property. The buildings insurer provided the resident and her partner with temporary accommodation while the landlord repaired the damage to the property.
  3. On 31 August 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. She described the damage done to the property. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs following the fire. She felt it had been unhelpful and she did not know when the work would be complete. She was still staying in temporary accommodation and this was impacting her health. She was paying service charges and would soon be liable for council tax.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 July 2023. It partially upheld her complaint. It acknowledged that there was a long delay in the response and the time taken to begin the repairs. It provided details of the repairs planned, which it expected to resolve by the end of August 2023. It provided a named officer to oversee the works. It recognised that it had contributed to the delays in starting the works but denied any failures related to fire safety or dealing with insurers. It listed the causes for the delay to complete the repairs. These included issues with the contractors and materials. It offered the resident £400 compensation. This comprised of £50 for complaint handling failures, £150 for delay and £200 for distress and inconvenience.
  5. It is unclear when the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 October 2023. It determined that it had not considered the time taken to respond to her complaint at stage 1. It acknowledged that it had not fully considered the distress and inconvenience caused. It increased its offer of compensation to £550. This comprised of £150 for complaint handling failures, £200 for its service delivery, and £200 for distress and inconvenience.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2023. On 5 July 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman that she returned to the property on 7 January 2024 but there were some works outstanding. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication throughout and felt it had not fully acknowledged her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. During the complaint journey, the resident told the landlord that the smoke from the fire damaged her physical health. She also reported impacts to her and her partner’s mental health caused by the long-term stay in temporary accommodation. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether the landlord’s actions, or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider compensation awards depending on the severity of the impact an issue has on its residents. It sets out the amounts it considers as follows:
    1. It offers up to £100 compensation where there has been a low impact caused by delays or distress and inconvenience.
    2. It offers £250 compensation where there has been a medium impact caused by delays or distress and inconvenience.
    3. It offers up to £500 for any major impact caused by delays, or major impact with injury to health for distress and inconvenience.
    4. It will consider a maximum award of £50 for time and trouble.

Repairs to the property following a fire

  1. In accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the external parts of the property. Its responsive repairs procedure sets out the parts of the property that it will always be responsible for. This includes the external walls and decoration.
  2. The fire would have been a deeply frightening and upsetting experience for the resident. She described waking up to the sound of glass cracking and finding her room filled with smoke. She had to flee her home in the middle of the night, leaving all her paperwork. Given the circumstances, the landlord should have been sympathetic in its approach from the outset.
  3. The landlord’s initial response was not unreasonable. It attended the property on the day of the fire and assessed the damage. It was reasonable to rely on its insurer to find the resident alternative accommodation and cover her additional expenses while she was away from her home. However, the resident reported that she felt the landlord treated her in a heavy handed manner. She said the landlord’s officers were unhelpful and did not give her any advice on who to speak to. The landlord failed to investigate and respond to those concerns which likely caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
  4. The landlord’s communication in 2022 was poor. The resident frequently sought updates and was frustrated by the need to stay in temporary accommodation. She highlighted the need to return to her home in a reasonable period. She said the time away from her home caused her to delay significant life decisions.
  5. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what caused the delay to begin works. Its records show that it had some difficulty scheduling work with its window supplier. However, this was in December 2022, which was more than 12 months after the fire. It failed to resolve the issues with its supplier in a timely way and the delays continued in 2023. It told the resident that it had approved the order for new windows on 30 January 2023 and that there would be a 12 week lead time. Yet, the landlord had not finished the works 6 months later when it issued its stage 1 response.
  6. The landlord appropriately accepted that it had contributed to the delays in starting the works in its stage 1 response in July 2023. Its approach was resolution focused. It provided a schedule of works and offered a single point of contact to manage the works. It also sought to allay her other concerns about fire safety within the block. It showed that it recognised the fire as a serious incident and was appropriately reviewing its fire safety processes. It correctly asserted that she was responsible for maintaining her own smoke alarm.
  7. However, the landlord did not fully respond to the resident’s complaints. It did not consider her allegations of poor staff conduct early in the timeline. It did not address its poor communication with the resident throughout 2022 and 2023. Its offer of £350 compensation (excluding the £50 offered for complaint handling) reflected a medium impact caused by delays in accordance with its compensation policy. This offer did not reflect the detriment caused to the resident. She had been staying in temporary accommodation for more than 18 months at that time. She had described the impact this had on her and her partner. It was not fair and did not put things right in the circumstances.
  8. The landlord significantly improved its communication with the resident from August 2023 onwards. It provided a schedule of works and discussed plans to resolve the outstanding repairs to the decking and windows. It clarified its plans with the resident, responded to her emails, and kept her informed of progress. Its internal records in August 2023 show that it believed it would resolve the works in September 2023.
  9. The landlord used its stage 2 response in October 2023 to re-assess its compensation offer at stage 1. It appropriately recognised that the compensation offered did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. It recognised that it had not considered the resident’s time and trouble. However, its offer of £400 compensation (excluding the revised £150 offer for complaint handling) was still only reflective of a medium impact on the resident. The resident was absent from her home for around 2 years at that point. The landlord should have considered increasing its offer to reflect the major impact the delays had on the resident. It did not and this was a failing.
  10. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property following a fire. There were mitigating factors to our finding that show the landlord sought to minimise the impact on the resident after she complained. It took steps to complete the works and improved its management of its contractors between August and December 2023. It improved its communication and made some offers of redress.
  11. However, the damage to the property was primarily fire damage to the balcony, windows, and balcony door. There was also smoke damage inside the property. The landlord’s records show that a reasonable lead time for the manufacture of the windows and balcony door were around 3 months. The fire occurred in October 2021 and the resident returned home in January 2024. This was around 26 months later. The time taken to complete these repairs in the circumstances was entirely unacceptable.
  12. The landlord failed to properly consider the impact the delays had on the resident. Its offer of £400 compensation did not reflect the detriment caused. It was not fair and did not put things right in the circumstances. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £600 compensation. This order reflects a major impact as set out in the landlord’s compensation policy and is reflective of the significant impact in Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. The resident had to stay away from her home, in temporary accommodation, for more than 2 years. She told the landlord and Ombudsman of the life changing impact this had on her.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made her first complaint on 31 August 2022. Between September and October 2022, the resident regularly sought updates from the landlord. The landlord initially offered calls to speak to the resident in September and October 2022. There was discussion between the parties and the resident frequently offered times and dates for her availability. The records show that the resident was flexible with her availability but the landlord failed to follow through with its committed times to call her.
  2. Despite the resident telling the landlord she would be away in November 2022 and agreeing to contact it on her return, the landlord still decided to try and close the complaint in December 2022. This was unacceptable behaviour and further inconvenienced the resident, causing her additional time and trouble pursuing her complaints.
  3. Between April and July 2023, the landlord wrote 5 holding letters to the resident, saying it needed more time to issue its complaint response. Although the landlord sent holding letters to the resident in April, May, June and July it still failed to issue a response until 14 July 2023. The use of holding letters to allow time to gather further information to accurately respond to the resident can at times be reasonable. However, in this case, the landlord unreasonably delayed its response which caused the resident further time and trouble.
  4. The landlord went some way to acknowledge its complaint handling failures in its stage 1 response on 14 July 2023. It said that it knew it must be quicker when responding to complaints. However, its offer of £50 compensation did not adequately address the detriment caused by its complaint handling failure. It did not address the number of times the resident had chased the landlord for updates, or the distress this caused which was apparent in her emails.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 11 October 2023, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that there had been a delay issuing its stage 1 response. It recognised that it had failed to address the time taken to process the complaint.
  6. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint. Its offer of £150 compensation reflected a low impact caused by the delay combined with the resident’s time and trouble. However, it was clear from the resident’s emails that the complaint handling failures had a greater impact on her. There was a delay of around 10 months at stage 1.
  7. The resident took considerable time and trouble pursuing her complaints and became increasingly frustrated by the lack of response. This combined with its poor decision to attempt to close her complaint in December 2022 demonstrate a more serious impact on the resident. The landlord should pay the resident £350 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This reflects its own compensation policy for the impact caused by delays, distress and inconvenience, and the resident’s time and trouble.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property following a fire.
    2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident £1,350 compensation. This replaces the landlord’s compensation offer in its stage 2 response. This is comprised of:
      1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property following a fire.
      2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.
  2. Within 10 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must review its own communication and initial response to the resident’s report from October 2021 onwards. It should conduct a lessons learned exercise to consider the delays in scheduling repairs and its management of contractors. It should identify how it will improve response times and communications in future where an emergency causes a resident to be away from their home for a significant period. It should provide a copy of this review to the Ombudsman.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman within the timescales we have set.