Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202405328)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405328

Hyde Housing Association Limited

 

8 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, 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. a reported water leak;
    2. subsequent repairs;
    3. the response to items damaged during this incident;
    4. the related complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The complainant is an occupant of the property. The resident gave them authority to act on her behalf.
  2. The landlord first attended the resident’s property for a hot water repair on 12 March 2024. A leak was then reported a few days later. The landlord again attended and identified an additional issue – this time from the cold water tank. A temporary repair was done but soon after completion, the leak began to worsen. At this point, the resident placed another call to the landlord to request an engineer. Over the following few hours, the ceiling cracked and partially collapsed causing the resident to notify the fire brigade.
  3. On 21 March 2024 the resident raised a complaint regarding outstanding repairs to the property following the water leak. During this incident, she said that there were several items that had sustained damage. The resident requested these be considered as part of the complaint.
  4. The complaint was acknowledged on 26 March 2024, with a stage 1 response issued on 25 April 2024. In the stage 1 response, the landlord accepted responsibility for the delay in repairs being carried out, with the first appointment not being offered until 18 April 2024. The landlord requested a receipt for the damaged items (a television and an Apple watch) to enable an investigation.
  5. The television was referred to the landlord’s insurance department and a follow up email was sent to the Insurance Services Manager to provide information regarding this claim. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and offered compensation for this, along with an award for other damaged personal items. The final payment was £500 compensation.
  6. On 26 June 2024 the resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The reasons for escalation were incomplete repair works, no communication from the insurance manager and the landlord’s refusal of compensation for her Apple watch.
  7. A stage 2 response was issued on 18 July 2024. The landlord advised that it was unable to uphold the complaint as the ceiling had been repaired and decorated to the resident’s specification, with a paint pack being offered to alter the finish if the resident desired.
  8. The landlord’s investigation into the damaged Apple watch produced no evidence that this occurred due to the ceiling collapse. It said the television damage had been escalated to an insurance claim and, as such, could not be considered as part of the complaints process.
  9. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses regarding the handling of the initial repair and the decisions about personal belongings. The complaint was then escalated to the Ombudsman on 14 August 2024.
  10. The Ombudsman has been made aware by the resident that the landlord’s insurance partner settled the claim for both the Apple watch and television in November 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of a reported water leak

  1. In accordance with the responsive repairs operational procedure, the landlord is responsible for attending and diagnosing repairs when it receives direct calls from the customer. The landlord is responsible for arranging appointments and completing repairs within the agreed timescales. Contractors are responsible for ensuring that works are completed to the agreed standards.
  2. On 15 March 2024 the resident alerted the landlord to a leak coming through the bedroom ceiling. Whilst the resident was waiting for an operative to attend, the leak worsened. The resident informed the landlord and soon after requested the fire brigade’s attendance due to safety concerns.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will attend an emergency repair within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord initially arranged to attend the property within the window specified in its repairs policy. The resident decided to call the fire brigade in the meantime as she was concerned about the ceiling safety. Nevertheless, the landlord did attend on the following working day to make safe the ceiling. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. We have identified no service failure in the landlord’s response to the emergency repair. The landlord acted within the timescale stated in its policy for an emergency repair and attempted to resolve situation in a reasonable manner.

Handling of subsequent repairs

  1. The landlord first attended the property on 28 March 2024 to replace part of the ceiling affected by the leak and to apply a plaster skim, allowing for the ceiling to be sanded and painted at a later visit. This is in line with the landlord’s policy where additional repairs need to be completed.
  2. The resident specified the finish on 8 April 2024, with one ceiling (the bedroom) to be finished in silk and one (the stairway) in gloss. The notes state this was based on the resident’s request and she reflected this in a message to the landlord.
  3. Following the decorations on 30 April 2024, the customer identified that the same gloss finish was applied to both ceilings and noted an uneven finish between the old and new repair. The resident also reported damage was caused to a wall mirror.
  4. The landlord responded stating that the contractor did not accept responsibility for the damage and did not feel comfortable to return to correct the finish. As a resolution, the landlord offered a paint pack allowing for the customer to complete the works herself.
  5. The landlord failed to adhere to it repairs policy which states ‘When attending the customer’s property, the contractor will carry out works as per the works order’. The landlord initially said it would complete the repair based on the resident’s request but its operative failed to follow this direction – both ceilings were done in gloss.
  6. Although the landlord offered to send a paint pack, it would have been reasonable for it to arrange an alternative contractor to inspect, check the quality of the original works and rectify them at an early stage. In our view, the landlord’s action was not resolution-focused and this was a service failure.
  7. We acknowledge the landlord recognised the delay in the repair process and offered £100 compensation. Although it was positive that the landlord awarded some redress, it did not post-inspect the works the resident was concerned about so did not do enough to put things right. We have made an order below regarding this.

The response to damaged items during this incident

  1. Following the leak, several items were allegedly damaged which included an Apple watch and television. The landlord referred the television to their Insurance Service Manager to contact the resident and assess the claim. This was an appropriate action from the landlord to allow liability to be assessed.
  2. The landlord’s complaints team investigated the damaged Apple watch internally and requested pictures and a receipt for the item. Following a review, they determined no visible damage and that the manufacturer’s specification confirmed the item was waterproof. As such, the resident’s complaint in respect of the Apple watch was not upheld (although this outcome was later changed).
  3. Throughout the complaints process, the resident requested updates regarding the television, along with a call back from the Insurance Manager. The resident reports most of these requests were unanswered.
  4. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord did not provide necessary information to its insurance partner to allow this claim to be properly assessed. The information requested included the repairs history, communications history and a timeline of events. Further, it did not reply to the insurance partner’s emails requesting this information over a 5 month period.
  5. The landlord’s insurance partner subsequently could not complete their review of the claim until 21 November 2024, in which they upheld not only the claim for the television but also the Apple watch.
  6. The landlord’s failure to communicate with its service partner throughout this process meant there were unnecessary delays between April to November 2024 that likely caused both stress and inconvenience for the resident. This was a service failing.
  7. We acknowledge the landlord did offer compensation of £300 for distress and inconvenience related to the other items that were damaged during this incident, which include a bedside table, tissue box and glass. It is unclear what the breakdown was between distress and inconvenience and reimbursement for damaged items.
  8. However, the Ombudsman finds that the overall amount was an adequate sum to reflect the inconvenience of the resident having to wait for an insurance outcome. It was reasonable for the landlord to award an amount for the more minor damaged items alongside this.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident first raised the complaint on 21 March 2024, with the landlord acknowledging this within 5 working days. The landlord’s stage 1 response was then issued on 25 April 2024.
  2. This response time falls outside of the landlord’s policies, which state the initial acknowledgement will be issued within 5 working days with an investigation response at stage 1 being issued within 10 working days.
  3. Due to the timeframe between the initial acknowledgement and the stage 1 response, we deem this was a service failure.
  4. However, we acknowledge that the landlord recognised delays in its process and offered compensation in recognition of this with £50 being awarded for complaint handling failure and £50 for customer effort. This amount is within a range that the Ombudsman recommends where there were failings over a short duration. We therefore find that the compensation award was proportionate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the water leak;
    2. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the subsequent repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. the response to items damaged during this incident;
    2. the related complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Arrange a survey of the work undertaken to the bedroom ceiling. Following this survey, it should write to the resident to advise what works are needed and explain its decision. It should provide the resident with a planned date for completion of those works.
    3. Pay the resident the compensation amount of £100 as offered in its stage 1 complaint response for the failings identified in its handling of the repairs.
  2. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 for the failings in its handling of the damaged items and the £100 for its complaint handling findings. Our findings of reasonable redress are made on the basis that these amounts are paid.
  2. The landlord should review how it monitors referrals to its insurance partner to ensure a robust process is in place for frequent updates and monitoring claims to completion.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations.