Hyde Housing Association Limited (202328142)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328142

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 July 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 handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s footpath.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The property has its own footpath leading to it, accessed via a gate.
The landlord’s records show the resident has a physical disability.
On 18 August 2023 the resident requested a repair from the landlord as her footpath was damaged.
On 23 August 2023 the resident told the landlord that the footpath was causing a trip hazard. She was also finding it difficult to shut her front gate.
The resident complained to the landlord on 21 September 2023. She said she had not received a repair appointment. Her front path was lifting, which prevented the front gate closing and was causing a trip hazard.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 12 October 2023. It said:
1. The situation had been a “long and drawn-out process” and apologised for the distress and inconvenience.
2. It should have completed the repair “much sooner” and it was sorry it let her down.
3. Following the repair request, it responded the same month and reported there were no health and safety concerns. It did not raise any follow-on works.
4. A repair order had been raised and works to “rectify issue with footpath” would be completed by 27 October 2023.
5. It offered £200 compensation broken as:
  1. £50 complaint handling failures.
  2. £150 for customer effort.
On 16 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord requesting her complaint was escalated to stage 2. She said she had asked for further details of the repair, but her voicemails and email had not been answered.
On 15 November 2023, the resident contacted us. She said the landlord had not responded to her stage 2 escalation request. She said she was disabled with mobility issues, and the footpath was still a trip hazard. The repair completed was different to what the landlord told her it would do.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 December 2023. It said:
1. It was sorry for the further difficulties and recognised that it would have been frustrating and upsetting for the resident.
2. It completed works as agreed in its stage 1 response.
3. Contractors would attend on 21 December 2023, weather permitting, and make a concrete slope from the edge of the paving slabs to the gate.
4. It had not failed in service and did not uphold her complaint.
On 10 January 2024 the resident said she would like us to investigate her complaint. She remained unhappy with:
1. The landlord’s handling of her stage 2 escalation request.
2. The decision of the landlord to not uphold her complaint and find no service failings.
3. The communication of the landlord in the repair and complaints process.
4. The landlord not showing it dealt with her repair request sensitively and considered her disability.
5. The delays of repair to the footpath and stage 2 escalation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s footpath

The landlord’s “responsive repair operational procedure” says:
1. The landlord was responsible for the repair of “paths, steps or other external means of access”.
2. Routine repairs would be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states discretionary compensation can be awarded for delays, distress and inconvenience and time and trouble.
The landlord logged a repair to the footpath on 23 August 2023. This was attended by contractors on 24 August 2023. It was appropriate for the contractor to attend promptly as the resident had raised concerns of a trip hazard. It is unclear from the records what action was taken at the appointment however the repair job was updated as “work completed”.
It is clear the resident was not aware the contractor had attended, and a repair had not been completed. In the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord on 21 September 2023 she said that she had not received a repair appointment. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to update the resident of the contractor’s visit and provide clear next steps.
A further repair job was raised on 3 October 2023. This was nearly 6 weeks after the initial visit from the contractor. The job incorrectly being marked as complete resulted in an unreasonable delay. The details on the repair log shows the works were to:
1. Lift up paving and remove old base.
2. Lay new base and compact.
3. Lay new concrete path with a float finish.
4. Raise the gate by cutting off the hinges and welding them on higher.
5. Possibly install a temporary ramp.
The resident was not kept informed on progress of her repair request. On 12 October 2023 she told the landlord that a contractor had attended the day before, but she had not been informed. She said she had spoken to the landlord about the repair recently but had not been given any information. She asked the landlord what work the contractor was asked to complete and if they were returning. She told the landlord 3 large paving slabs had been removed and it was causing a further trip hazard.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it was positive for it to acknowledge that it had been a long process and the impact on the resident. It was also positive for the landlord to acknowledge and be open with the resident about what had gone wrong. It would have been frustrating for the resident that the repair log had been closed without works raised.
The landlord recognised the impact on the resident and offered £150 for “customer effort”. It is unclear what its compensation offer for “customer effort” related to as this definition is not detailed in its compensation policy. To put things right, the landlord said works would be completed by 27 October 2023 to “rectify issue with footpath”. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to detail what the repair works would be. This would have set the resident’s expectations and provided her with reassurance of how the potential trip hazard would be resolved.
The resident was not given information of what the repair would include and so chased the landlord for a response on 16 and 25 October 2023. She told the landlord:
1. Her voicemails and email had been unanswered.
2. A contractor attended on 11 October 2023. They removed 2 large paving stones and overlaid with a concrete mix. The paving slabs had not been replaced.
3. The removal of the paving slabs had created a further drop which was a trip hazard. The resident was disabled and at night it was impossible to see the step.
4. She had been told once the paving stones were lifted, a temporary ramp would be placed on the path. The gate would be raised off its hinges and welded higher. That had not happened.
5. The path was unsightly and her property was in a conservation area. It was not in keeping with the character of the area.
The landlord told the resident on 25 October 2023 that it had sent the issues to the repairs team and would feedback to the resident when it had a response. There is no evidence the resident received a further response from the landlord. The lack of communication resulted in the resident emailing the landlord for updates on 3 occasions between 29 October 2023 and 10 November 2023. In her emails she repeatedly told the landlord she was disabled and struggling to use the footpath. This would have left the resident feeling ignored and unclear when the issue would be resolved. The resident would have also felt her concerns of a trip hazard and her vulnerabilities were not taken seriously.
The landlord contacted the resident by telephone on 14 December 2023. It told the resident it would not replace the paving slabs as they would not fit and they would not adjust the gate. The landlord said to “make safe” a slope had been requested as the resident had mobility issues and struggled lifting her bins down the steps. A repair was raised on 15 December 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with an update however there was an unreasonable delay in doing so. The landlord has not provided an explanation of the delays in logging a further repair or providing an update to the resident. The evidence reviewed does not show the landlord was proactive in repairing the footpath.
The landlord’s final complaint response was the opportunity for it to review its actions, take accountability for any failings and take action to put things right.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said it had not failed in service. The landlord arranged for repairs to be completed the next day but did not recognise its overall delay in doing so. The landlord did not comment on the lack of communication to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do so as the resident raised this in her escalation request. There had also been further occasions since where the resident had not received a response from the landlord. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not show it had taken the resident’s concerns of a trip hazard seriously and considered her disability circumstances. The landlord missed the opportunity to rebuild trust with the resident.
The contactor did not attend as agreed on 21 December 2023. During a telephone call with the resident on the same day, the landlord told her to let it know if it does not get completed by 29 December and it would chase again. This was unreasonable. The landlord should have taken responsibility to contact the contractor. Responsibility should not be for the resident to keep the landlord updated. The landlord should have been proactive in ensuring the repairs appointment was kept or updated the resident if it could not keep an appointment.
The contractor attended on 22 December 2023. The resident contacted the landlord the same day and said she thought contractors were putting a board over the wet concrete, but it had not been done. A further row of paving slabs had been removed and concreted. The resident said there had been poor communication. On 27 December 2023, the landlord told the resident that further paving slabs had to be removed to make the slope gradual. It had been requested for a cover to be placed over the top of the wet concrete and apologised this had not been done.
The landlord recognised its failures in its stage 1 response and provided redress to the resident. The offer of £150 compensation at stage 1 was proportionate to the failings at that time. However, it failed to acknowledge any further failings in its stage 2 response. We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s footpath. This is because
1. The landlord delayed logging further repairs to the footpath. This delayed the resolution for the resident.
2. There was a lack of clarity from the landlord of what works would be completed. This caused the resident distress. It failed to reassure the resident her concerns of a trip hazard were taken seriously.
3. The landlord was not proactive in providing updates to the resident. This meant the resident spent time chasing. She was left unclear on when the issue would be resolved.
4. It did not show it had considered the impact on the resident due to her health circumstances.
The resident has told us that she accepted the compensation offered at stage 1 and that has been paid. The landlord is ordered to pay a further £200 compensation to the resident. This is in addition to the compensation already paid. This is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident after the landlord’s stage 1 response. The amount awarded is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for a medium impact discretionary compensation payment.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy states:
1. Stage 1 complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days after its acknowledgement.
2. Stage 2 complaints would be responded to within 20 working days of receipt of an escalation request.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states:
1. “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure.”
2. “Requests for stage 2 must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 2 of the complaint procedure within 5 working days of the escalation request being received.”
The landlord provided an acknowledgment 8 working days after the resident made her stage 1 complaint. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for complaint handling failures in its stage 1 response. It was positive for the landlord to acknowledge a failure in its service however it did not provide any explanation of what the compensation offer was for and did not offer the resident an apology.
The resident told the landlord she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 16 October 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her request. The resident chased the landlord on a further 4 occasions between 25 October 2023 and 10 November 2023. After not receiving a response, the resident contacted us for help. In line with the Code, the landlord should have escalated the resident’s complaint after receiving her request. By not doing so, this caused the resident frustration and time and trouble in trying to get a response from the landlord. The lack of communication from the landlord meant the resident was left unclear on the status of her complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 December 2023, which was 47 working days after the resident requested her complaint was escalated. This was significantly over the committed response time of 20 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord failed to acknowledge its response was delayed. The landlord said it was “sorry for the further difficulties you had regarding all of this”. The landlord did not give clarity on what it was sorry for and therefore missed the opportunity to provide the resident with an effective apology and try to put things right. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for not managing her escalation response well and providing a delayed complaint response.
We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This is because the landlord delayed escalating the resident’s complaint and only did so when we requested it to. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its stage 2 response. The resident was inconvenienced by having to chase the landlord on several occasions. The lack of communication left the resident unclear on the status of her complaint, causing her distress.
The landlord offered £50 compensation for complaint handling failures in its stage 1 response. This was proportionate to the failings of the landlord at that time. Our order of compensation is to recognise the failings of the landlord in its complaint handling after its stage 1 response. We order the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation to recognise the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. This amount is ordered in addition the compensation that has already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s footpath.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified.
2. Pay the resident a total compensation of £275, broken down as follows:
  1. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of repairs to the resident’s footpath.
  2. £75 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the failures in its complaint handling.
  3. This amount is to be paid in addition to the compensation already paid to the resident.
  4. This should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any possible arears.
3. Provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders