Hyde Housing Association Limited (202429476)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429476

Hyde Housing Association Limited

18 August 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 repairs to a communal front door.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property. She purchased the lease in 2023. The property is a 1 bedroom flat within a building containing 6 flats and a commercial premises. The flats share a communal front entrance door which has an electronic door entry system with intercom. This is the only means of entering and exiting the building for most of the flats. The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the communal areas.
The resident says that she first reported issues with the communal front door to the landlord on 2 February 2024. She says she called it to report loose cables inside and outside the door, which were getting stuck in it when it was opened and closed. On 23 March 2024, the resident raised a repair for the issue using the landlord’s online reporting tool.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 28 October 2024. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not carried out repairs to the door, despite her reporting issues for the past 8 months. She said in addition to the loose cables, the doors hinges had come loose meaning it got jammed, the ‘quick release’ latch was broken, the lock barrel was loose, and the door had no handle on the inside to assist in opening it. She said the current condition of the door represented a hazard, would prevent residents escaping if there was a fire and meant that they were not safe in the building.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 October 2024. It apologised to the resident for the delays in it carrying out repairs to the door and offered her £100 compensation for these. The landlord said that repairs to the door were scheduled to be carried out that day.
On 3 November 2024, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. She said that the landlord had attended on 31 October 2024, however all it had done was remove what was left of the quick release mechanism. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not resolved any of the issues she had raised with the door.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 December 2024. It said that:
1. It had attended on 21 November 2024 to carry out repairs to the door and install trunking around the cables.
2. Its contractor would be attending to address issues with the lock.
3. It aimed to complete all works by 12 December 2024.
4. It acknowledged and apologised for the further delays and offered the resident an additional £250 compensation for these.

Events since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

The resident emailed the landlord on 10 December 2024. She disputed its claim that it had attended on 21 November 2024 and said no works had been completed. The resident said the landlord had “created such a hostile, toxic, and unsafe environment here, that I no longer feel safe to continue living here for fear of my mental and physical health”. She asked the landlord to reassess its offer of compensation considering the level of failings and impact upon her.
On 23 March 2025, the resident referred her complaint to us for investigation. She said the landlord had failed to respond to her email of 10 December 2024.
On 7 July 2025, the resident told us the there were still loose cables “inside, outside and around the door” which caused it to get jammed. She said the landlord had still not reinstated the quick release mechanism.

Assessment and findings

The resident said she first reported issues with the cabling around the front door to the landlord in a phone call on 2 February 2024. The landlord has not provided any record of this phone call.
On 23 March 2024, the resident logged a repair with the landlord using its online reporting form. The landlord emailed the resident 2 days later and advised it would be attending on 8 April 2024. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 April 2024, as the loose cabling had still not been addressed. The landlord told her that it had attended but been unable to gain access to the building.
The landlord’s records show that it actually attended on 5 April 2024 and was unable to gain access. The resident later told the landlord that she had arranged to work from home on 8 April 2024 so that she was available to give access for the repair appointment. Had the landlord made the resident aware it had brought forward the appointment, it is possible she would have been able to make herself available to facilitate access.
The landlord’s records show that it returned to the building on 18 April 2024 and was again unable to gain access. The repair order listed the code for a key safe at the building, but this appears to have been empty on both occasions it attended. The landlord has provided no evidence that it took steps to ensure access following the first appointment, such as arranging for a key to be deposited in the key safe.
The landlord added a note to the repair record following the no access visit on 18 April 2024. It asked for the repair to be rebooked “as soon as possible due to live cables being exposed in the hallway”. Despite this the landlord closed the repair on 19 April 2024 without reattending. It has not provided an explanation for this or for why it failed to follow up on such a serious concern.
On 13 May 2024, the resident phoned the landlord again and raised the matter. The landlord logged a repair on 17 May 2024 and attended on 22 May 2024. It fed back that it was an “electrical issue” which needed to be passed to its door entry contractor and marked the repair as complete.
The resident noticed that the landlord had closed the repair on her online account and contacted the landlord about this on 17 September 2024. This brought to the landlord’s attention that it had failed to raise a repair to its door entry contractor. This error delayed the repairs by several months and would likely not have been discovered were it not for the resident’s perseverance.
The landlord raised a repair to its door entry contractor on 17 September 2024. It attended on 24 September 2024 and reported back to the landlord that:
1. The front door was rubbing against its frame causing friction when it was opened and closed.
2. The cabling around the inside of the door was “telecoms and coax cables – not door entry”.
3. The cabling “requires attending to as it is causing issues with the opening and closing of the door”. It was referring this back to the landlord to address as the issues were not with the door entry system.
4. The door entry system was operating correctly. The covering for the quick release button was broken, but still functional. The landlord would need to raise a new repair for it to order and fit a replacement part.
On 26 September 2024, the landlord appropriately raised a new repair based on the door entry contractor’s findings. However, it cancelled this repair on 10 October 2024. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this, and it is evident the issues had not been resolved.
The resident says that during an inspection on 2 October 2024, a member of landlord staff became trapped in the communal hallway as they were unable to open the communal front door. She says that the member of staff contacted the landlord and raised an emergency repair for the loose cables around the door. The landlord’s records corroborate this, showing an emergency repair raised on that date. The landlord’s website says that it will attend emergency repairs and complete a ‘make safe’ within 24 hours.
However, the landlord cancelled the repair the following day. It said that if the cables were from the door it would need to go to its door entry contractor and asked the member of staff to provide more information on the nature of the cables. This was information that the landlord already had from its door entry contractor’s report and demonstrates poor internal communication and record keeping. Even without the relevant information, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have attended to assess and make safe a potential hazard.
The resident later reported that a vulnerable resident from another flat also became stuck in the communal hallway on 20 October 2024. The resident said she had to assist them in opening the front door to leave the building. This underlines the seriousness of the situation.
The landlord did attend on 21 October 2024. It replaced the communal door lock, removing the quick release mechanism. This appears to have been unrelated to the resident’s reports and due to issues with anti social behaviour and squatters within the building.
On 28 October 2024, the resident made her complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response just 3 days later. It acknowledged the delays in carrying out repairs and offered the resident £100 compensation for these.
It also advised that repairs were due to be carried out the day it sent its response. The landlord still had 7 working days remaining of the 10 working day timeframe its policy allows for a stage 1 complaint response. Considering this, it would have been reasonable for it to have waited for these repairs to be carried out and included the outcome, and any further action required, as part of its response.
Despite its previous report making clear the issues with the door and cabling were outside of its remit, the landlord sent its door entry contractor to the property on 31 October 2024. It carried out works to remove the remains of the quick release mechanism and link the newly installed lock to the electronic door entry system. It again told the landlord that it needed to “repair the door urgently as it is no longer aligned and will not open without force”.
On 3 November 2024, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. None of the issues with the cabling or the defective door had been addressed and there is no evidence the landlord had acted upon the feedback from its door entry contractor.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it had attended on 21 November 2024 to repair the door and fit trunking to the exposed cables. The resident later disputed that this had happened. The landlord has not provided any evidence of it attending on that date to us.
On 22 November 2024, the resident fitted a handle to the inside of the door at her own expense to assist with opening it. In her email of 10 December 2024, she said this had cost her approximately £18, which the landlord had not factored into its compensation award. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to this.
Despite its complaints process having ended, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to still provide its position on whether it would consider reimbursing her for this. It would also have been appropriate for it to inspect this unauthorised alteration made by the resident to ensure it was fit for purpose and properly installed.
The landlord has provided evidence that it sent a contractor to put trunking around the cabling on the inside of the door on 6 December 2024. The contractor told the landlord that it recommended further works to install trunking through the whole building. It said there were cables causing a trip hazard throughout. The landlord raised a repair for this on 15 January 2025, which was marked as complete on 12 February 2025.
However, the resident has said that the trunking inside the door began to fail only a few months later. She also provided photos in July 2025 showing loose cables still laid around the outside of the communal front door.
We note that on 28 March 2025, the landlord raised a repair to its door entry contractor to tidy the cables outside the communal door. Even though the contractor had already made it aware these cables were not related to the door entry system and not within its remit. This evidenced continued poor record keeping and information management.
The landlord raised a repair for the communal front door on 5 June 2025. It attended this on 9 June 2025 and said it had “fixed the door” and put on a brush seal. This was almost 9 months after its door entry contractor had advised that it needed to address the door and over a year after the resident had first raised her concerns.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident a further £250 compensation for the delays, her time and trouble and the distress and inconvenience caused. It is our view that the landlord’s total offer of £350 does not offer sufficient redress for its repeated and cumulative failings in this case.
Despite the resident repeatedly raising them and making it aware of incidents where people became stuck inside the building, the landlord failed to address the exposed cabling and defective door for an over a year. The potential consequences of this could have been severe for all occupants of the building, whilst the resident has spoken of the actual impact it had on her mental health and enjoyment of her home. Due to this, we make a finding of severe maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal front door.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the communal front door. The landlord may deduct any amounts already paid as part of its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses from this.
2. Write to the resident:
  1. Apologising for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Giving its position on reinstating the quick release lock mechanism that was previously present on the communal door.
3. Arrange for a suitably qualified person to conduct an inspection of the communal areas of the building This should give particular regard to:
  1. The communal front door.
  2. Cabling outside the front door.
  3. Cabling and trunking inside the front door and throughout the communal hallways.

The landlord should share the findings of this inspection with the resident, along with details of action it intends to take to address any issues identified.

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to carry out a review of this case and produce a report identifying lessons learnt and actions it can take to prevent a recurrence of the failings. The report should be shared with the member of the landlord’s senior leadership team with oversight of its responsive repairs service.
The landlord should provide evidence of its compliance with these orders to us.