Hyde Housing Association Limited (202408454)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408454

Hyde Housing Association Limited

25 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. A leak in the kitchen
2. A leak in the toilet room.
3. Condensation on the pipes.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 16 August 2018. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 8 April 2024 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary she said:
1. She had a leak coming from behind her washing machine. This prompted her to purchase a new washing machine. She was advised by the company who installed the washing machine on 6 February 2024 that the pipe work behind the washing machine was too short, and this could be the cause of the leak. Once the washing machine was installed a blockage within the pipe work became apparent. This then caused a leak under the sink.
2. The leak was reported to the landlord, and it attended 6 days later on 12 February 2024. The leak was fixed, and the plumber could not see any issues with the pipe work behind the machine. Since then, she had a continuous leak coming from the washing machine. This has caused damp on the flooring.
3. Due to the leak when the plumber attended, they needed to turn off the water supply by the mains in the toilet. This created a small leak from the tap in the toilet room. This was reported on 29 February 2024 and the landlord responded that day. The plumber said there was a leak coming out from the sides where the tap is. He was able to fix this. He advised that another plumber needed to attend to enclose the pipes to conceal the condensation. She had not been contacted about this. This leak had caused damage to the flooring.
4. A plumber then attended on 8 March 2024. He advised that the pipes do not need to be concealed. He said holes were required in the wall to help with the condensation. He said the flooring needed to be changed due to the smell and the rotting.
5. She requested another plumber. A plumber came on 15 March but was late so unable to access. On 18 March 2024 the plumber attended again. This plumber advised that the pipes needed to be enclosed due to the condensation. He left advising that he was going to buy new flooring and equipment for the pipes. He then called an hour later to say that he had to wait for the landlord to authorise the works. She then contacted the landlord for an update. She was told she would receive a call back, but she did not receive this.
6. The damp specialist arrived and confirmed that flooring in the kitchen and bathroom had damp underneath needed to be changed. She was told that a repair would be raised but to date she had not heard anything.
7. She wanted the pipe work behind the washing machine to be fixed. She said this would be a 2-man job. The last time an operative attended he made a dent in her washing machine where he used his foot to push it back in. He also had to cut and remove some of the flooring.
On 24 April 2024 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. In summary it said:
1. It could see an order was raised on 12 March 2024. It arranged for an operative to attend on 14 March 2024, but it was unable to access. It was then informed that the resident had called in and cancelled the appointment.
2. Another order was then raised, and it attended on 8 April 2024. It was advised that private work had been carried out to the washing machine. It had photographs showing that the pipe was uncapped. Due to this the damages caused to the kitchen were the resident’s responsibilities.
On the same day the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2. She said the pipework was still leaking. She disagreed that a third party had tampered with the any of the pipe work. Its surveyor had damaged the tap in her toilet which caused a leak. This resulted in damage to her flooring.
On 14 May 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. In summary it said:
1. In respect of the leak from a pipe behind the washing machine it upheld its finding in its stage 1 complaint response. The replacement of the kitchen flooring would be the responsibility of the resident.
2. In respect of its operative causing damage to the tap in the toilet room which caused damage to the flooring. It had not been able to find any evidence that this had happened. It attended an emergency appointment on 7 March 2024 when it had been reported the leak was coming from the stop cock. It removed the nut and applied a sealer which stopped the leak. It was unable to replace the flooring in the toilet as it was not installed by it. It would be the resident’s responsibility to replace.
The resident disagreed and contacted this Service. She felt that the landlord was responsible for the leaks and the damage caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident and her family. Its adverse impact on the family’s welfare is also acknowledged. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around damage to the flooring are beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.
The resident has informed this Service that she reported a leak from her washing machine again in April 2025, and the landlord has attended. While the resident’s concerns about this matter are acknowledged, this is a new report of a leak, and it is unknown if it is linked to the original leak. This Service cannot therefore consider this issue as the same leak. Particularly as the report has been made almost a year after the stage 2 complaint response dated 14 May 2024.
Events that took place after the stage 2 complaint response will not be considered in this investigation. This is because her complaint about the leak which occurred in April 2025 has not been raised and considered through the landlord’s complaints procedure yet.
Paragraph 42(a) of the scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. If the resident has had to report a further leak to the landlord since the stage 2 complaint response and she is dissatisfied with its response. She will need to raise a new formal complaint with the landlord to enable it to have an opportunity to respond.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a leak in the kitchen.

The landlord’s repair procedure states that it has 3 repair categories. Emergency repairs which it will attend to within 4 hours to make safe within 24 hours. It will respond to all other anytime repairs within 20 working days. Major repairs or complex works will be undertaken as per its stock investment procedures.
It states that plumbing installed by resident’s would be the resident’s responsibility. Leaks in the property would be its responsibility. Damage to goods following repair issues such as a leak would be the resident’s responsibility.
The repair records show that a leak was reported by the resident on 7 February 2024. The record states that the leak was in the kitchen and was coming from the sink or from the waste pipe. The notes state that the leak was reported as containable and that a towel or container could catch the water.
The landlord attended 3 working days later on 12 February 2024. The records show that call outs were raised for the next day but then cancelled and it is unclear why that was. However, the records do state that the leak was containable so therefore the report may not have qualified as an emergency repair. On that basis the landlord’s response to the report was in accordance with its policy. The notes state that the repair was fixed but it does not specify what action the landlord took. This is a shortcoming in its record keeping.
A further report was made on 12 March 2024. The report said that the leak only occurred when the washing machine was in use, but the resident was unable to contain the leak when it was on as she was unable to get to the back of the machine. She had concerns it could leak into the property underneath. Again, as the leak only occurred when the washing machine was in use it was reasonable that the landlord did not classify it as an emergency repair in accordance with its policy.
The repair records show that it attended on 14 March 2024 but was unable to access. The landlord said the resident had cancelled the appointment. The resident agreed with this version as she explained it was due to a personal emergency. The landlord’s contracted plumber did attend again on 18 March, but it is unclear whether it addressed the leak behind the washing machine during this visit. The notes make no reference to the leak relative to the washing machine.
The landlord explained in its complaint response that it attended to the leak in the kitchen again on 8 April 2024. The records also confirm the landlord’s version of events. This was 18 working days after the resident’s second report on 12 March 2024 so still within its 20-working day response time.
The records state that the landlord concluded that the resident had carried out her own plumbing waste install to facilitate the washing machine. It said that these works had been poor and caused the leak which had damaged the kitchen flooring. On this basis it said that the repair and the damage caused to the flooring was the resident’s responsibility. This coincides with its repair procedure which states that plumbing installed by the resident is the resident’s responsibility.
It is acknowledged that the resident disagreed and felt confused as to why this issue was not highlighted when the contractor attended to the leak originally. This may or may not have been an oversight during its first visit. It is further acknowledged that the resident disagrees that works had been done by her or a third party. This Service does not dispute the resident’s version of events. However, we rely on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
In this case it is considered reasonable that the landlord relied on the expert opinion of its contractor. Given the contractors findings there were limited steps the landlord could have taken in this instance. This Service has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to resident’s concerns about a leak in her kitchen.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a leak in the toilet room.

The landlord’s compensation policy states that where a resident alleges damage to property it will refer them to its insurance policy.
The records show that a leak from the stop cock was reported on 29 February 2024, and the landlord attended on the same day. The landlord stated it attended on 7 March 2024 in its complaint response. Although it did attend on that date its visit appears to be related to condensation on the pipes as the leak had been stopped at this point. Its complaint response was therefore confusing. The works it completed however were as described in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord had clearly responded to the report as an emergency and had attended within its policy timescales which was appropriate.
The landlord’s explanation about causing damage to the stop cock was reasonable in the circumstances. There is no evidence to support that its operative had caused the damage. The landlord clearly explained this within its complaint response. Its contractors notes did not advise that the works were required because of damage caused and it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on this.
However, the leak had caused damage to the resident’s flooring. The landlord said that as it had not caused damage to the tap, it was not responsible for the damage to the flooring. This was in line with its repair procedure but not in accordance with its compensation policy. Under the circumstances the landlord should have considered providing the resident with details of how to make a claim on its liability insurance.
This was a failing in its handling of the matter which amounts to a service failing. Its failing has caused the resident the inconvenience of having to continue living with damaged flooring. It has also caused her further time and effort having to pursue her complaint further. An order will therefore be made for the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation.
An order will also be made to ensure that the landlord discusses any outstanding concerns she has about the damage to her flooring and provide her with details of its liability insurer, if it has not done so already. The liability insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s decision or the claims process, aside from passing on the details of how to claim to the resident. We cannot comment on the likely outcome of any liability or insurance claim the resident may submit.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about condensation on the pipes.

When the landlord attended on 29 February 2024 concerning the leak from the stop cock the records show that a job was raised stating the pipework in the toilet needed to be insulated. The resident states that when the landlord attended on 7 March and again on 18 March 2024, she was told conflicting information about what works were required. On the last visit its contractor had left to purchase replacement flooring but she had not heard anything since.
The landlord fails to specifically address the resident’s concerns about what she had been advised by its contractor in either of its complaint responses which is a failing in its complaint handling. The records show that the notes saved against both appointments on 29 February and 7 March 2024 were the same which was confusing and indicates poor record keeping.
The records that correspond to its attendance on 18 March 2024 do show that a job had been raised for flooring to be replaced but a further internal note stated that it was not sure whether the works were necessary. This coincides with the resident’s version of events in that she was told her flooring would be replaced. The evidence fails however to show whether this change in the works was communicated to the resident which is a failing in its handling of the matter.
The records indicate that a further job was raised relating to insulating the pipes in the toilet in April 2024, but it is unclear whether the works were actually completed. This Service contacted the landlord in June 2025 and asked it to clarify. The landlord failed to respond.
It is acknowledged that there must have been further issues relating to damp and mould and a survey was completed by the landlord in February 2025. It fails however to mention any condensation on the pipes. An order will therefore be made to ensure that the landlord sets out its position to the resident in respect of the condensation on the pipes. If the issue remains outstanding it will need to inform the resident what works are required and when the works will be completed.
In summary the landlord has failed to show that it appropriately communicated with the resident about the condensation found on the pipes. Its records are inadequate and do not clearly show what it had done, when it attended, and what works were actually required. It also failed to address the issue within its complaint response which was a missed opportunity to put matters right sooner.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the above failings amount to maladministration. An order will be made for the landlord pay the resident compensation for the time and effort the resident has had to spend pursuing her complaint further.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a leak in the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a leak in the toilet room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about condensation on the pipes.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £225 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about a leak in the toilet room.
  2. £150 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about condensation on the pipes.
Within the next 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss verbally and provide confirmation in writing of the following:
1. Details of its liability insurer and how the resident can make a claim, if appropriate.
2. It should set out its position relative to the condensation on the pipes if it has not done so already. If the issue remains outstanding it will need to inform the resident what works are required and when the works will be completed.