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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202417447)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417447

Hyde Housing Association Limited

10 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 landlord’s handling of:
    1. An emergency repair to the resident’s bathroom light.
    2. The resident’s reports of communal lighting repairs.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord and occupies a 1-bedroom, second-floor flat. She is a wheelchair user and has physical and mental health issues. The landlord has confirmed its records reflect this.
  2. On 9 October 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about an emergency repair to her bathroom light on 28 September 2023. She said the landlord had advised that a contractor would attend within 4 hours. She said she had waited by the intercom in her flat all day, but they did not arrive. However, she understood the contractor said they had attended but there was no answer. The issue was subsequently resolved by another contractor at 8.30pm that evening. The resident also complained that the landlord had not fixed the lighting in the communal courtyard area. She said, “All the lights are off… It’s pitch black very dangerous to come through. It’s like mugger’s paradise.” She said she had contacted both the landlord and managing agent and it was not good enough for them to simply tell her “it’s on order”.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 30 October 2023, stated:
    1. It attached a copy of the report from the contractor, with a photograph showing the operative at the communal front entrance to the resident’s building.
    2. It accepted it should have kept the resident better updated and provided her with information regarding the missed emergency appointment.
    3. It had since attended the property on the second attempt and completed the repair.
    4. While it was not responsible for the outstanding communal lighting repair, it agreed it could have done more to raise this to the freeholder and provide her with updates. It apologised for not communicating as well as it should have done.
    5. It had raised a formal complaint with the freeholder as the communal lighting repair was now outside the expected response time and it had not been provided with a timescale for completion. It would keep the resident updated.
    6. It was currently undertaking a number of actions to improve service delivery to residents and response times for repairs, and to identify when matters needed to be escalated as a complaint.
    7. It offered the resident compensation totalling £200, which comprised:
      1. £50 for customer effort.
      2. £50 for the delays in completing the repairs.
      3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  4. The landlord’s subsequent letter dated 17 November 2023 acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. It recorded that she had said the evidence relating to the missed emergency appointment was incorrect and misleading as it did not show the door into her building. She had also confirmed that the communal lighting had been fixed, although she remained concerned about the landlord’s maintenance culture and urged it to do better.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 November 2023, stating:
    1. It noted that the resident’s original complaint related to the time it took to complete the communal lighting repairs. The stage 1 response had partially upheld her complaint as part of the delay was due to no access when it attended the first emergency callout.
    2. It had investigated internally and come to the conclusion that there was nothing to dispute what the resident had said. This incident had been placed on record and was being monitored to see if it was a genuine mistake or a forming pattern.
    3. It sincerely and unreservedly apologised for any inconvenience caused.
    4. It agreed that it did not take sufficient care in providing the resident with accurate information.
    5. It had shared her feedback with its senior management team on how it needed to improve its maintenance culture, and assured her this would be fed back to the relevant teams.
    6. It increased its previous compensation offer to £400, comprising:
      1. £50 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaints process.
      2. £100 for customer effort.
      3. £50 for the delays in completing the repairs.
      4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  6. The resident accepted the compensation payment from the landlord at the time, but she remained dissatisfied with its response and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She has told us that the communal lighting keeps failing after being fixed and requires regular repair. Even when working, she says the communal lights offer only “a tiny bit of light”, so it is still quite dark in the courtyard. She feels this is dangerous as it offers a hiding place and she is concerned for the safety of her father, who is her main carer and often leaves her property late at night after she is in bed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman understands from the resident that she has raised a further complaint with the landlord about ongoing issues with the communal lighting in January 2025. As this post dates the complaint that is the subject of this investigation, we have not considered the recent issues as part of this assessment.

Emergency repair to the resident’s bathroom light

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure provides the following timescales for completing repairs:
    1. Emergency repairs – “required in order to sustain the immediate health, safety or security of the resident, or that affects the of gas, water, electric or heating; blocked boiler flues; and insecure doors or windows” – to be attended within 4 hours to make the property safe. If the repair cannot be completed whilst the contractor is on site, any follow–on works will be treated as an anytime repair.
    2. Anytime repairs – “any responsive repair that is not an emergency repair” – to be completed within 20 working days.
  2. It is agreed between the parties that the resident reported her bathroom light was not working to the landlord on 28 September 2023. This was categorised as an emergency repair by the landlord because the resident did not have a window in her bathroom. The repairs history shows that the job was raised at 10.02am. The contractor updated the landlord as follows: “No access glass com door, spoke to [staff member name] from site 28/09/2023 14:28”.
  3. Records show that a further emergency repair was raised at 3.47pm. A different contractor attended and repaired the bathroom light later the same day, although it is not clear at what time they attended. The resident’s complaint stated it was 8.30pm.
  4. It was reasonable for the landlord to take the “no access” report from the first contractor at face value and rely on this in its stage 1 response. To its credit, it adopted an independent and inquisitorial approach to investigating the matter when the resident challenged the evidence provided.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that there was no evidence to dispute what the resident had said about the contractor not attending the first emergency appointment. As the landlord is responsible for any failings by its contractors, it acted appropriately in offering a sincere and unreserved apology. It also demonstrated it had taken the complaint seriously by explaining the various actions it had taken to address the failings identified.
  6. The bathroom light repair was completed outside the 4-hour timescale given in the landlord’s responsive repairs procedure, which was inappropriate. Although the delay was relatively short-lived, the resident’s complaint noted that she could not use the toilet while the light was not working. This represents a moderate degree of distress and inconvenience caused to her.
  7. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord’s positive approach to dealing with the resident’s escalated concerns. Its stage 2 response dealt with the issues raised in a fair and open way, acknowledged and apologised for its shortcomings, and sought to put things right by way of compensation awards. Its commitment to monitor the situation to see if it was a mistake or a recurring pattern demonstrates a willingness to learn from the resident’s complaint, address any wider systemic issues and improve services for residents. This was consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
  8. The compensation offered at stage 2 was not clearly apportioned between the complaints forming the basis of this assessment. However, on the basis that the stage 1 response dealt primarily with its shortcomings in the handling of communal lighting repairs and the stage 2 response accepted its failings in respect of the bathroom light repair, it is reasonable to infer that the increase in compensation awarded at stage 2 (£200) related to the issues in respect of the bathroom light. This was a fair and proportionate remedy to reflect the impact resulting from its failings. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to make a finding of reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the emergency repair to the resident’s bathroom light.

Communal lighting repairs

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement includes the following provisions in the section setting out the landlord’s repairs responsibilities:
    1. “We will make sure the structure and outside of your home are kept repaired, including … pathways, steps or other access routes.”
    2. “We will make sure we keep shared entrances, halls, stairways, lifts and passageways and other shared areas repaired.”
    3. “We will do repairs within a reasonable time of you telling us about a problem. The time taken will depend on how urgent the repair is and the response times and priority times that apply at that time.”
  2. The stage 1 response stated that the landlord was not responsible for the communal lighting repairs and the delay was on the freeholder’s part. This was not consistent with the repair obligations set out in the tenancy agreement, in which there is no reference to a freeholder. Nor has the landlord provided a head lease showing the distribution of repair responsibilities between itself and any freeholder. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman takes the view it is reasonable to conclude that communal lighting issues formed part of the landlord’s communal repair obligations under the tenancy agreement.
  3. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. It should have appropriate systems in place to keep records of repairs and monitor the outcome of contractor appointments so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
  4. In this case, the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any evidence relating to the communal lighting repairs. We have not had sight of the resident’s reports or the steps the landlord took to address these repairs. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied that it dealt with these repairs in a reasonable and timely manner. Similarly, there is no evidence of its communications with the resident, which leads us to conclude that it did not keep her reasonably updated.
  5. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that the communal lighting repairs were completed on 23 September 2023, but no evidence of this has been provided. Also, this is not consistent with the limited evidence available to the Ombudsman. For example, a video sent to the landlord with the resident’s complaint on 9 October 2023 shows the resident standing in a paved area which is in darkness. The resident can be heard saying, “Still no working lights in the courtyard. Pitch black. This has been like this now for over a month.”
  6. In a telephone conversation on 17 October 2023, the resident told the landlord she felt “let down by the lack of repairs that have been carried out to the external communal area”. She said she did not feel safe as it was extremely dark in the evenings. She had also said she had not been kept updated with the progress of the repair. This demonstrates the impact on the resident of the delay in resolving the communal lighting repairs.
  7. The stage 1 response accepted that the landlord “could have done more in raising this to the freeholder” and providing the resident with updates. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of a complaint to the freeholder, any responses received by the landlord, or any updates provided to the resident. At the very least, these failings contributed to the delays in resolving matters for the resident.
  8. While there is no evidence to show when the repairs were completed, the stage 2 acknowledgement letter dated 17 November 2023 recorded that the resident had told the landlord the communal lighting had now been fixed. Therefore, it appears that the communal lighting repairs were outstanding for around 2 months. This was excessive given the 20-working-day timeframe in the landlord’s responsive repairs procedure.
  9. The lack of relevant evidence in this case has severely hampered the Ombudsman’s assessment of this complaint. For instance, we cannot establish when the initial report was made, the length of the delay in resolving the communal lighting repairs, the frequency of the resident’s attempts to chase progress and updates, or when and how the landlord dealt with matters. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to find maladministration in respect of this complaint.
  10. The resident’s safety concerns relating to the communal lighting issues represent a moderate impact over a 2-month period. Therefore, the landlord should pay compensation totalling £350 for its failings in relation to communal lighting repairs. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration and has been calculated in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure as follows:
    1. £100 for the delay in completing the repair.
    2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
    3. £50 for the time and trouble the resident incurred to resolve matters.

Paragraph 49 investigation

  1. In December 2024, the Ombudsman completed a special investigation report into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. These included the handling of repairs and its complaints procedure.
  2. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its handling of repairs and record keeping. Therefore, no orders or recommendations have been made that would duplicate the ongoing work arising from the special investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of an emergency repair to the resident’s bathroom light.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal lighting repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £350 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she experienced as a result of its multiple failings in handling the communal lighting repairs. This should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears. The £350 may be reduced by any amount (up to £200) already paid towards this issue.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £200 for its failures in its handling of the emergency repair to her bathroom light.