From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202330436)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330436

Hyde Housing Association Limited

12 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in his property and the associated repairs.

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint the resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord for a one-bedroom, second-floor flat. The resident was later assisted in both his repair reports and complaint by a representative.
  2. On 3 September 2023, the resident told the landlord that a plumber attended his property on 6 August to investigate a leak. He said they found asbestos present and told him not to use his bathroom. Since then, he said, 3 further plumbers had attended who said they would report the repair to the landlord. He said he had called multiple times about the issue but nothing had happened, and his bathroom and flooring were “ruined”.
  3. The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 4 September 2023, stating the resident was 81 years old and living alone. She said it had been 30 days since the plumber told him not to use his bathroom. The resident complained by phone on 25 September, stating the leak from his bathroom ceiling had been ongoing for 7 weeks. He also said no one had inspected the asbestos.
  4. On 10 October 2023, the landlord obtained an asbestos survey report from 2015 for the property. The report stated there was a strong presumption of asbestos present in the bathroom. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 October 2023. It apologised and said it should have completed the repairs sooner. It offered £350 compensation. It said it inspected the property on 16 October and arranged for plastering works to be completed on 30 October.
  5. The resident’s representative escalated the complaint on 30 October 2023. She said the landlord had failed to complete the plastering repair that day, and when she called, it had told her there was no scheduled work. She believed the landlord was leaving a vulnerable person in inadequate living standards and failing to communicate. She also said it failed to consider the barrier of the residents’ poor literacy skills when communicating with him.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 November 2023. It acknowledged it did not repair the leak, communicate or offer reassurance when it should have done so. It increased its compensation to £700 and confirmed it repaired the leak on 10 November. It said it would repair the resident’s bathroom ceiling, redecorate and apply mould treatment on 29 November.
  7. The representative contacted the landlord on 29 November 2023. She said an operative attended and left without completing any work because of the potential asbestos. The landlord later scheduled the necessary repairs for 6 and 14 February 2024. However, it failed to attend on those dates. It later completed all repairs by 8 May 2024.
  8. The landlord reviewed its compensation on 15 May 2024 following a request from the representative. It increased it to £1200. It acknowledged it should have demonstrated more accountability for the repair before the complaint. It said its previous compensation failed to fully consider the delay, inconvenience and distress caused.
  9. The representative confirmed in correspondence with the Ombudsman on 5 June 2025 that the resident has since sadly passed away. The resident’s next of kin asked that his complaint be investigated.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s initial complaint of 25 September 2023 concerned an ongoing leak from the flat above that was damaging his bathroom, including the ceiling and flooring.
  2. Between 5 August and 10 November 2023, the landlord took 69 working days to complete the repairs to fix the leak from the neighbour’s flat above. Following this, it took a further 107 working days to complete the repairs to the resident’s bathroom ceiling on 16 April 2024. Both exceeded the 20 working day timescale for routine repairs in the landlord’s repairs policy.
  3. Both of the landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged that it had “let the resident down” and appropriately arranged repairs. The resident’s representative questioned whether it was repairing the leak but the landlord did not reply to her.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 28 November 2023 acknowledged it failed to repair the leak “when it should have done.” It also acknowledged it failed to communicate with the resident or reassure him about the repairs or the damage caused. It explained it would repair the bathroom ceiling, redecorate and address damp and mould by 29 November 2023.
  5. However, when it attempted to complete the repair on this date, it was unable to do so due to the presence of asbestos. The resident had informed the landlord of the presence of asbestos on 3 September. The landlord had also obtained a copy of a 2015 asbestos report for the property on 10 October 2023. Therefore, it is unclear why it failed to take any steps to address the asbestos before attempting the repair. Its failure to do so prolonged the completion of the repairs in the bathroom.
  6. Following this, the landlord did not arrange further repairs to the bathroom until January 2024, when prompted by the resident’s representative. It scheduled the repairs to be completed between 6 and 14 February. However, again, it failed to complete these repairs as agreed. It also failed to inform the resident that it would not be attending or offer alternative dates. It later completed this on 16 April. It completed further repairs to the bathroom flooring and redecorated on 8 May.
  7. The landlord offered total compensation of £1200, which the resident accepted. In accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, the amount offered was proportionate to the distress, inconvenience and effort caused to the resident.
  8. However, there were several points that the landlord’s complaint responses or compensation failed to address.
  9. The landlord holds a vulnerability policy which sets out its approach to identifying and supporting vulnerable customers. It recognises some customers are vulnerable and may have additional support needs to access its services.
  10. In the complaint escalation, the resident’s representative raised her concerns about the impact of the pending repairs on the resident, particularly as he was elderly and living alone. Furthermore, the resident’s concern throughout was the presence of asbestos in his bathroom. He was uncertain whether he was able to use his bathroom due to advice from the landlord’s plumber.
  11. The landlord did not discuss asbestos in its complaint responses. It also did not reassure the resident whether he was able to use the bathroom and if the asbestos would impact him in his home.
  12. The landlord was aware that the resident was elderly and he had no other bathroom or toilet in his property.  There is no evidence the landlord considered support for the resident, as its vulnerable resident policy suggests. This could have included completing a risk assessment, consideration of providing alternate wash facilities or a decant. This was a failing.
  13. The resident’s representative raised concerns about the resident’s difficulties communicating with the landlord. She said he had poor literacy skills, and it had taken no steps to address these barriers. The landlord did not discuss the residents’ communication concerns in its complaint responses. There is no evidence that it spoke with the resident to consider what reasonable adjustments it could make to support him in communicating. This was unreasonable and a failure to abide by its commitment to remove barriers in its complaints policy.
  14. In summary, the landlord took too long to complete repairs to the leak in the flat above and repairs in the resident’s bathroom when compared against its repair timescales. It acknowledged its errors in doing so, apologised and offered appropriate compensation. However, it did not the resident’s concerns about the asbestos in his property. It also failed to consider his age and that he was living alone and did not complete a risk assessment or take steps to support him or remove barriers to communication.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in his property and the associated repairs.

Orders and recommendations

  1. In light of the failings found in this report, the landlord must pay the resident’s estate £1500 within 4 weeks of this report. This comprises:
    1. £300 for its failure to address the concerns about asbestos and support for the resident.
    2. £1200 it offered to the resident on 15 May 2024, if it has not already paid this.
  2. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord must complete a review of this case and what learning it will take from the failings detailed. It must give particular consideration to communication with residents and its ability to offer reasonable adjustments to remove barriers. It must provide details of this review to the Ombudsman.
  3. Evidence of compliance with this order must be provided by their respective deadlines.