Hyde Housing Association Limited (202346620)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346620

Hyde Housing Association Limited

27 June 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:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the operation of windows and a lack of ventilation.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy at the property, which is a 2 bedroom fourth floor flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household. During her correspondence with the landlord the resident said that her mental health had been impacted by the matters and her son had asthma.
On 7 December 2023 the resident reported that window handles needed to be replaced and the window units had blown. A surveyor attended on 29 December 2023. They fitted cable restrictors as a replacement to the hinge restrictors.
The resident made a complaint on 8 January 2024 as she did not feel the cable restrictor child locks were safe or a permanent solution. She reiterated that the window in her son’s bedroom had blown. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 30 January 2024. It explained its surveyor had inspected the windows and had fitted restrictors. It would not be replacing the hinges. It offered a total of £200 compensation for delays, distress and inconvenience.
The resident escalated the complaint on 31 January 2024 as the window issue had not been resolved. A window contractor inspected the windows. It found the hinge mechanism was not working and draught excluders had perished.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 5 March 2024 and said there was a provisional date for the window works for 19 March 2024. It increased its offer of compensation to £500 for the substantive issue and £150 for its delayed stage 2 response.
The resident referred her case to us on 13 March 2024. She said as follows:
1. The windows had not been resolved. The situation was impacting her mental health and her sleep. She was worried her son would open the window in the night.
2. The child safety locks on the windows were not sufficient and she did not feel it was safe to open the windows when her son was in the property. The windows, which were heavy, could trap his fingers.
3. Her son had been hallucinating in his sleep and sleep walking and had injured his eye. They needed to be moved to a different property.
She added to this on 3 July 2024. The resident said contractors had attended to replace the window hinges but could not do so because scaffolding was in the way. It was hot inside the property and the lack of ventilation caused condensation during the winter.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord sent a follow-on response on 6 August 2024. It increased its offer of compensation to £850 for the substantive issue. The resident told us she was satisfied with the additional compensation offered and that works had been completed in July 2024.
The resident subsequently contacted us in January 2025 and said that there were still issues with the windows and condensation. She said before the window works took place she had slept in a car. She said a contractor had recommended cutting the doors to allow airflow but this could not be done as they were fire doors.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident feels both her and her son’s health has been impacted by the condition of the property. The courts are the best place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because independent medical experts can give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased information on the diagnosis, prognosis and the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of any such injury, this can be examined in court. Therefore, it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable and more effective to seek a remedy to this through the courts. While we cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inactions on health, if there is evidence of a landlord failing, consideration will be given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, on 5 March 2024, the resident raised a concern about heating in the property. The landlord responded to this as a separate complaint. The resident subsequently referred this to us. This complaint is being considered by us separately under reference number 202453376. As such, the resident’s concerns about the heating do not form part of this investigation.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, on 5 March 2024, inspections identified other repair issues. As these did not form part of the complaint to the landlord, the resident would need to raise these as a complaint if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handing of these matters. She can then refer the matters to us following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure if she remains dissatisfied. For clarity, these issues are:
1. The window trickle vents appearing to be blocked when inspected in January 2025.
2. A “MVHR” ventilation unit not working sufficiently when inspected in January 2025.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the operation of windows and a lack of ventilation

The resident’s tenancy agreement says:
1. The resident is responsible for replacing window glass.
2. The landlord is responsible for window catches and window frames (excluding the glass).
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy categorises repairs as follows:
1. Emergency repair – it will make safe within 24 hours. Follow on works will be completed as a routine repair. It gives an example of such a repair as being an insecure window.
2. Routine repair – it aims to complete such repairs within 20 working days.
There is currently no specific statutory legal framework governing the installation of window restrictors in dwellings. Part K of the Building Regulations 2010 relate to the fastening of windows and safe opening and closing of windows. However, dwellings are specifically exempt from these regulations.
The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. It was introduced under the Housing Act 2004 and applies to residential properties in England and Wales. The HHSRS states a hazard could be something which could lead to a fall from a property.
Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the property is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
The resident told the landlord on 7 December 2023 that window handles needed to be replaced and the window units had blown. We have not neen provided with a relevant record, however, it appears the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend to inspect the issue the following day.
The following day, the resident told the landlord that the contractor had not attended. She had waited in all day. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a reason or apology for this at the time to the resident.
The landlord re-raised the job, however, it did not explain to the resident why it no longer categorised the issue as an emergency. Given the circumstances of the report, the landlord did not ensure that it fully understood the nature of the issue, including whether the window was insecure and whether it should respond as an emergency. As there was a young child in a fourth floor property, it is reasonable to conclude this added to the risk present because of the issue reported by the resident, and as such, it is reasonable to expect there to have been greater urgency in the landlord’s response following the failed appointment.
A contractor attended on 29 December 2023. They fitted cable restrictors as a replacement to the hinge restrictors. This work was carried out within 14 working days of the resident’s report.
The resident made a complaint on 8 January 2024 as follows:
1. The landlord had attached child locks to the windows. However, she did not feel this was a permanent solution. She asked for latches to be fitted.
2. There was condensation in her son’s room. She believed this was because the window had blown.
The landlord responded to this at stage 1 on 30 January 2024 and said as follows:
1. Its surveyor had inspected the windows. It had overhauled them and fitted cable restrictors. It would not be replacing the hinges.
2. It apologised for the inconvenience. It was undertaking a number of actions to ensure it would respond to residents more quickly.
3. It offered a total of £200 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £125 for delays in service delivery.
  2. £75 for distress and inconvenience.
Although the landlord installed cable restrictors, it did not explain why it would not replace the restrictor hinges. It is clear the resident did not feel the cable restrictors were sufficient to make the windows safe for her son. In the circumstances the landlord missed the opportunity to explain its reasoning to her or assure her of the functionality of the cable restrictors. The landlord also failed to address her concern about the window glass being blown.
Following the resident’s ongoing concerns, the landlord instructed a window company to check the windows. This provided a second opinion by a specialist contractor. This contractor attended on 19 February 2024 and noted as follows:
1. The living room and bedroom windows were difficult to operate. The hinge mechanism was not working and required renewal.
2. The draught excluders had perished and required renewal.
3. Scaffolding would be needed to carry out the repairs. It noted there was already some scaffolding in place.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 5 March 2024 and said as follows:
1. Following the finding of the window contractor, it would replace the window hinges and draft excluders. A provisional appointment had been arranged for 19 March 2024. This could change depending on the necessary parts being sourced.
2. It acknowledged that it should have progressed the works quicker.
3. It increased its offer of compensation to £650, made up as follows:
  1. £100 for the resident’s effort.
  2. £200 for the delays in completing the repairs.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  4. £150 for the complaint handling failures.
Analysis of the stage 2 response shows the landlord committed to carry out the work to the windows. The date of the proposed work was 21 working days after the recommendation of the specialist contractor. Although this was slightly outside of its repairs timeframe, it is reasonable in the circumstances because such repairs require parts which may not be readily available. It is also noted that the contractor did not identify the windows presented a risk or were insecure.
The landlord acknowledged the delays and the effect they had on the resident. It offered a total of £500 compensation for its handling of the substantive complaint issue. This compensation amount also included consideration by the landlord of 2 other unrelated repair issues, which do not form part of this investigation. The landlord’s offer of compensation for complaint handling has been considered separately below.
The resident referred her case to us on 13 March 2024. She said as follows:
1. The windows had not been resolved. The situation was impacting her mental health and her sleep. She was worried her son would open the window in the night.
2. The child safety locks on the windows were not sufficient and she did not feel it was safe to open the windows when her son was in the property. The windows, which were heavy, could trap his fingers.
3. Her son had been hallucinating in his sleep and sleep walking and had injured his eye. She said they needed to be moved to a different property.
On 3 July 2024 she told us that contractors had attended to replace the window hinges, but could not do so because scaffolding was in the way. She said it was hot inside the property and the lack of ventilation caused condensation during the winter.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord sent a follow-on response on 6 August 2024. It said as follows:
1. It had reviewed its offer of compensation and had increased this to £1000. This was made up as follows:
  1. £150 for the resident’s effort.
  2. £350 for the delays completing the repairs.
  3. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  4. £150 for the complaint handling failures.
2. It explained the increased offer took into consideration the delays with the repairs, distress in light of the resident’s personal circumstances, poor communication and appointment issues. It acknowledged it should have taken more time to support the resident, escalated the matters to ensure works were completed and considered further compensation sooner.
3. It outlined a number of changes it had introduced to its processes to reduce the likelihood of such failures happening again.
The resident told us she was satisfied with the additional compensation offered and that window works had been completed in July 2024. Notes we have seen from the landlord show that it had carried out mould treatment in April 2024 and confirm it had repaired the windows in July 2024. The resident contacted us on 8 January 2025, around 6 months later and said that she was still having issues with the windows and condensation.
In total the works to the window took from when they were identified by the specialist contractor on 19 February 2024 until July 2024 to be completed. This was a period of around 5 months and was significantly outside of the landlord’s repairs timeframe. However, it is noted the work was delayed due to scaffolding being in place on the block for an unrelated matter. This restricted access to the window hinges and the ability for contractors to conduct the necessary works. This delay was something which was outside of the landlord’s control.
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.
We encourage landlord’s to take resolution focussed action, no matter what stage a case is at. However, the main focus for a landlord should always be to ensure that a case is resolved fairly during its internal complaints process.
It was not until the resident referred her complaint to this Service, that the landlord conducted a further review of the case and concluded that it should have offer higher compensation to acknowledge the effect of its failures on the resident.
Following the involvement of the Ombudsman, the landlord offered £850 compensation for the substantive aspect of complaint. It also carried out a damp and mould survey and committed to resolve unrelated identified issues.
The landlord explained why it had increased the offer of compensation and the actions it had taken to make changes to its processes based on the resident’s experience. This demonstrated a commitment to learn from the complaint. Despite this, our outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress is less likely to be determined where compensation was increased following the completion of the internal complaints procedure.
The landlord’s initial offer of £500 compensation was within a range we would expect to see where failures have adversely affected a resident. This offer of compensation was reasonable to acknowledge the effect of the failures on the resident. We have taken into consideration the resident’s belief that it was not safe to open the windows, which impacted the ventilation of the property. However, this was balanced by the landlord’s inspection of the windows, which did not identify a safety risk and its inability to complete the work sooner due to the existing scaffolding preventing access.
The landlord’s revised offer of £850 compensation was within a range we would expect to see where failures had a significant impact on the resident. In offering this the landlord explained that it had taken account of the further delay in the work being carried out and the resident’s personal circumstances. Although the landlord had offered a reasonable amount of compensation during the internal complaints procedure, it was appropriate for it to reconsider this in light of the additional delay, which occurred after the completion of the internal complaints procedure.
As the compensation offered by the landlord during the internal complaints procedure was in line with our remedies guidance, and its subsequent offer coincided with the completion of the works, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the operation of windows and a lack of ventilation.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it aims to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. Following this, it aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days.
The resident made a complaint on 8 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged this the same day. It said it aimed to respond at stage 1 by 22 January 2024. It advised the resident on 22 January 2024 that it needed more time to investigate the complaint. It would aim to respond by 5 February 2024.
The landlord sent the stage 1 response on 30 January 2024. Although this was 6 working days outside of its response timeframe it was within the extended timeframe it had given the resident.
The resident escalated the complaint on 31 January 2024. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 5 March 2024. This was 24 working days after the escalation, and 4 working days outside of its response timeframe. The landlord acknowledged this delay and offered £150 compensation.
The offer of compensation was reasonable and was in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident. As such, there was reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the operation of windows and a lack of ventilation.
In accordance with paragraph 53b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord takes the following action:
1. The landlord re-offer the £850 compensation which it offered for the substantive matter.
2. The landlord re-offer £150 compensation to the resident for its complaint handling failures.
3. The landlord is recommended to write to the resident apologising for the way it handled the situation of her and her son having to sleep in the car. It should consider its failure to contact the resident and what learnings it has taken from the situation.
4. The landlord check with the resident if there are any outstanding concerns with the windows. If so, it is recommended that the landlord provide a plan of action in respect of the work.
5. It is recommended that the landlord update its record to reflect the household vulnerabilities.