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 (202330308)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330308

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 April 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 we have carefully considered it. 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of high energy usage following the installation of a new heating system in August 2022.
    2. The resident’s reports of high energy usage following the installation of storage heaters in April 2024.
    3. The resident’s complaint about a guttering repair.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a ground floor flat owned by the landlord. He is a wheelchair user and has several health conditions that the landlord is aware of.

Heating background

  1. In August 2022, the landlord replaced the heating system in the property. 3 months later, the resident complained to it about the energy consumption of the new system.
  2. Following several separate complaints about the heating in the resident’s home, the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 9 February 2024. It said it would obtain a quote to replace the heating system and offered a £9,610 reimbursement of heating costs. In April 2024, the landlord replaced the underfloor heating with storage heaters.
  3. On 18 April 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said his energy bills were still too high following the installation of the storage heaters, considering the size of his household and the type of property.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 23 May 2024. It said the resident’s energy use was based on consumption, and this varied depending on the individual needs of the home. It explained pricing was dependant on the supplier and tariff.
  5. Further correspondence took place between the resident and landlord, where the resident was concerned about a potential fault with the installation or the system itself.
  6. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 10 June 2024. It said it replaced the heating system in April 2024 for the exact make and model the resident requested. It confirmed the system was in full working order.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the final complaint response and so he referred his complaint to this Service. To resolve matters, he wants the landlord to refund the heating costs incurred which exceed the average usage published by the energy regulator.

Guttering background

  1. In May 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about its delays repairing a gutter. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 10 June 2024. It apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation. It said it would complete the repair on 27 June 2024. On 14 June 2024 it refused his request to escalate the complaint as a repair commitment was in place.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 July 2024. He said no one attended on 27 June 2024. While the landlord had since completed the repair, he wanted a stage 2 investigation in view of an unreasonable delay completing the repair.
  3. The landlord did not respond at stage 2 and so the resident referred the complaint to this Service. To resolve his complaint, he wants an apology and compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the way the landlord handling the issues with the heating system impacted his health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about impact to health and illness. This is largely because it can appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, his concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
  2. On 24 October 2023, we issued determination 202207408. This considered the landlord’s handling of reported heating issues in the property, including high electricity costs. In that case, we used our discretion to consider matters up to August 2022 when the landlord replaced the heating system. The resident has complained about some of the same issues within his correspondence with the landlord and this Service. In accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme, this Service may not investigate matters which the Housing Ombudsman has already decided upon. As such, we will not consider complaints about issues that were considered within the previous complaint.
  3. The resident expressed concerns to the landlord about various issues within the property and submitted copies of correspondence between the parties from 2022 to 2025. After a conversation between this Service and the resident on 3 February 2025, we established and agreed the definition of this investigation as per paragraph 1. Therefore, this determination solely focuses on these matters.

Reports of high energy usage after August 2022

  1. It is not the role of this Service to decide how much energy a resident should use within their home. Energy usage varies significantly and is dependent on things like property type, size, location and orientation, number of people living in the property, needs of the occupants, and the services and equipment they use.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out it is responsible for installations for space heating.
  3. The tenancy agreement states the landlord will make sure it keeps all fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, space, and water heating repaired and in working order.
  4. Records show that at the end of August 2022, the landlord replaced the heating system in the property.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord in October and November 2022 to explain he was living in fuel poverty. He said the new heating system was more expensive to run than the old one. To resolve his complaint, he wanted the landlord to install a more economical heating system and compensate him.
  6. The landlord’s records demonstrate its contractors attended in December 2022 and found the heating system switched off. The resident denies switching off the heating. It reported that once it switched on the system, the pressure was good.
  7. The landlord arranged a thermal imaging survey in February 2023. The survey stated, “…all zones are working adequately albeit some zones perform better than others, this is a common occurrence on underfloor heating due to the flow taking the route of least resistance.” During the survey, it noted that the heating system locked out on a fault code and so the contractor recommended that the other contractors attend to rectify the fault. In the Ombudsman’s view, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a thermal imaging survey to check the underfloor heating was operating effectively. The Ombudsman notes the survey did not identify any issues with the system that may impact the resident’s energy usage.
  8. Records show the resident reported several faults with the new heating system between August 2022 and February 2023. The resident resolved this aspect of the complaint directly with the landlord within a complaint that concluded in June 2023. Nonetheless, we have reviewed the information relating to the attendances. Contractors attended on multiple occasions during the period referenced above. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the issues identified caused or contributed to the heating system consuming more energy during this period.
  9. Throughout 2023, the landlord asked the resident to provide comparative bills so it could investigate his claims of higher costs. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to request this information so it could explore his concerns. However, the resident explained he had experienced high energy bills since he moved into the property, so he did not have any “normal” bills for comparison.
  10. The landlord arranged for contractors to attend the property in December 2023 to test the heating system and further explore the resident’s concerns. Contractors submitted a report to the landlord following testing. They said:
    1. On arrival, the heating was off. The underfloor heating should be left on to maintain temperatures. It is not designed for quick heating gains like a conventional high temperature system.
    2. The current usage pattern of the system could adversely affect electricity consumption. This is because the system was working hard to build heat rather than maintaining comfort levels.
    3. They noted the use of some supplementary electrical heaters within the property. These will impact the resident’s electrical bill.
  11. The landlord visited the resident at home with 2 senior members of staff in January 2024 to discuss the issues face-to-face. This demonstrated a willingness and commitment to understand his concerns and rebuild the landlord/tenant relationship. Following the meeting, the resident emailed the landlord and said… “they couldn’t have worked any harder on trying to resolve all of my outstanding issues for me and you have both fully listened, understood, shown kindness, compassion and understanding and from affecting my health you have both made me feel emotional and I can only thank you from the bottom of my heart”. The Ombudsman finds the landlord was proactive and provided an exceptional level of customer service to a vulnerable resident in its actions here.
  12. Following the meeting with the resident and his ongoing concerns about the heating system, the landlord agreed to replace it with storage heaters and install the specific type of heaters he had requested. The landlord’s actions show it took the resident’s concerns seriously and acted pragmatically to find a solution.
  13. Within our previous determination (relating to the previous heating system within the property), we ordered the landlord to establish a reasonable method for calculating the additional energy costs incurred by the resident from January 2019 to August 2022. Within the stage 1 response dated 9 February 2024, the landlord offered the resident a reimbursement of heating costs for a 5-year period, totalling £9,610. The landlord later explained it calculated this from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023, thus covering a greater timeframe than the Ombudsman ordered. Therefore, part of this offer is also relevant to this case. The landlord calculated this sum based on an excess usage of 6,200 kilowatt hours (kwh) per year compared to an average of 1,800 kwh per year for a property of the resident’s size.
  14. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the replacement heating system in August 2022 was causing higher energy usage due to a fault, and so the landlord’s decision to offer a significant reimbursement of energy costs from this period is beyond reasonable in the circumstances.
  15. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s decision to replace the heating system on a second occasion, combined with a significant reimbursement of energy costs, resolved this complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.

Reports of high energy usage after April 2024

  1. Records show the landlord installed storage heaters in the resident’s property at the start of April 2024. On 10 April 2024, he emailed the landlord to explain that even with the new storage heaters, he felt the energy costs were far too high. The landlord arranged for a supervisor to attend on 16 April 2024 to discuss his energy consumption. The evidence available show this appointment took place and the supervisor adjusted the settings on the heaters. The Ombudsman finds the landlord acted appropriately in its actions here.
  2. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 18 April 2024, citing that even though his energy bills have reduced following the installation of storage heaters, he said his usage was above that stated by the energy regulator.
  3. In its stage 1 response on 23 May 2024, the landlord stated that the energy consumption of each home is down to personal circumstances, occupants, and appliances, whereas tariff is down to supplier. It said it would no longer be discussing the heating system or consumption with the resident. The landlord issued its final response on the matter on 10 June 2024, refusing to escalate the complaint.
  4. At the time it responded to the complaint, the Ombudsman finds the landlord had not demonstrated that it had taken reasonable steps to investigate if there were any faults with the storage heaters or their installation which may have impacted the overall energy usage of the property. This was a shortcoming.
  5. Considering the amount of time this matter has been ongoing for, the vulnerability of the resident and the significant amount of complaint correspondence, we have used our discretion and agreed with the landlord to also consider the period which followed its final complaint response. The Ombudsman will consider up to December 2024.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord about his energy consumption on several occasions between July 2024 and November 2024. On 22 November 2024, the landlord offered to appoint a different contractor to check his heating system was set up correctly and to advise if there were any measures it could take to improve the energy efficiency of the home. Evidence shows it raised a work order to arrange this, and a contractor attended swiftly. Following the appointment, the contractor noted they also checked whether any communal power was drawing from the resident’s home. They did not identify any issues with the system.
  7. The landlord’s records show it attended on a further occasion in December 2024 where a contractor spoke with the manufacturer of the storage heaters to ensure they were set up correctly. Records show it did not identify any issues with the heating system. It agreed to change the water tank to one with a dual element which would work on the resident’s new heating tariff.
  8. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the reports of high electricity usage in the property. It attended the property on several occasions and stated it found no faults with the heating system. Its records support this conclusion. It reviewed the usage data provided by the resident and explained the storage heaters will never have a fixed cost as the amount of energy they need to charge will vary. This Service considers the action taken by the landlord was reasonable.
  9. While there was a delay completing further investigations between July 2024 and November 2024, the landlord found no issues with the heating system. Thus ultimately, this delay did not have a large bearing on the substantive issue. Further, the landlord has taken extra steps to support the resident by arranging for the installation of a new water tank at its own cost (when there were no faults identified with the old one). The Ombudsman recognises the resident is of the view that the larger water tank caused increased heating costs, however no evidence has been provided to demonstrate this. Further, the landlord is under no obligation to replace a functioning water tank under the terms of the tenancy agreement or within its responsive repairs policy.
  10. The resident is responsible for paying his energy costs and there is no obligation on the landlord to consider reimbursing or contributing towards said costs unless his usage had increased as the result of disrepair. There is no evidence to demonstrate that his energy costs were a direct result of any repair issues within the property for which the landlord was responsible. We do not expect the landlord to reimburse energy costs or offer compensation to the resident on this basis. We realise this will be disappointing to the resident.

Guttering complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The resident complained on 22 May 2024. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 10 June 2024, 12 working days later. Records show the resident requested a stage 2 response on 2 occasions, yet the landlord did not escalate the complaint.
  3. The Code states that landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure unless it has valid reasons to do so. If it decides not to accept a complaint, it must provide an explanation to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman does not agree that the landlord has fairly applied the exclusion, we may tell it to take on the complaint.
  4. In this case, the landlord refused to escalate the complaint to stage 2 as there was a repairing commitment in place. It did not provide referral rights to this Service. This was inappropriate and not in line with the expectations of the Code. When the repair commitment failed, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that it responded to the resident’s further request for escalation. This was a shortcoming in its complaints handling.
  5. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100 where there were minor failures by the landlord which may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. In this case, we find that compensation of £50 would be appropriate to recognise the impact the landlord’s complaint handling failing had on the resident. This is in addition to the £50 offered at stage 1 for the repair delay.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of high energy usage following the installation of a new heating system in August 2022.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of high energy usage following the installation of storage heaters in April 2024.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about a guttering repair.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its shortcomings in the way it handled his guttering complaint.
    2. Pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his complaint about a guttering repair. This is in addition to the £50 previously awarded at stage 1.
    3. Provide the resident with a stage 2 response to his guttering complaint.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

 

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £9,610 it previously offered (if it has not yet done so). We have made the reasonable redress finding on the basis this is paid.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord arranges a referral for the resident to its team of specialist advisors who can provide money advice to see what support options are available.