Hyde Housing Association Limited (202420990)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420990

Hyde Housing Association Limited

23 September 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 the resident’s request for information about public access through her garden.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 3-bedroom house, since February 2021. The resident told us that she lives with her partner and 4 children, 2 of whom have vulnerabilities.
For context, the resident’s property is located between 2 other residential properties. One of the resident’s neighbours (‘Neighbour A’) is a private owner, and the other (‘Neighbour B’) is also a tenant of the landlord. The resident reported that by using the gates located at either side of her property, Neighbour A and Neighbour B were frequently walking across the path (situated in the middle of her private garden) to access each other’s properties.
On 4 July 2024, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said she was unhappy that the landlord had failed to provide her with written confirmation about who was allowed to access her garden, despite requesting the information on “multiple” occasions for “over a year”.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 July 2024. It provided the resident with a copy of her tenancy agreement and said that its investigation had found that she had “the right over the garden of the property”.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 11 July 2024. She said this was because:
1. The landlord’s communication was inconsistent, and its stage 1 response did not address her concerns about third parties being allowed to access and walk across her garden without her knowledge or consent.
2. The landlord had not provided her with “substantiating legal evidence” that confirmed her neighbours had legal access to her garden.
3. If third-party access through her garden was permitted, she felt that the landlord should have informed her of this prior to her signing the tenancy agreement.
4. She had “serious safety concerns” about her disabled daughter’s assistance dog, as the neighbours were leaving her garden gate open.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 August 2024. It said:
1. It had recently provided the resident with a copy of a court order dated 2 February 2024. It said this confirmed that:
  1. Access must be given through the resident’s garden to anyone wanting to access Neighbour A’s property. This also included Neighbour B, who must be given the same rights as Neighbour A.
  2. The neighbours were not permitted to prop the gate open.
  3. The court had permitted it to install a latch on the resident’s gate with the aim of keeping it closed, as opposed to locking it.
2. Prior to the court order being issued, it was not aware of any “easements” (a legal right to occupy or use another person’s land for specific purposes) across the resident’s garden. Despite this, it said that had it been privy to the information, it was not required to provide the resident with the information, before she moved into the property.
3. It upheld the resident’s complaint as it had not given her all the information regarding access to her garden within its stage 1 complaint response. It offered her £50 compensation in recognition of her effort in pursuing the matter.
4. It provided the resident with an update on her request to install an additional fence and gate in her garden.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told us that the access arrangements through her garden are continuing to negatively impact on the enjoyment of her home. We do not dispute the resident’s comments. However, it is not within our jurisdiction to comment on or determine whether the landlord should review or seek to change the access arrangements. The resident can obtain legal advice if she wishes to pursue her concerns through the courts.
The resident has described how she feels the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue has negatively impacted on her family’s mental health. While we do not underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with the Scheme. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
The resident told us that she was also unhappy with the landlord’s handling of some other matters. Under the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. We will therefore not make an assessment of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). While we accept that the reports of ASB were linked to the garden access issues, we have seen no evidence that the resident raised her concerns within her initial request to make a formal complaint.
Additionally, we will not investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of parking issues. While we note that the resident asked the landlord to confirm who owned the lay-by at the front of her property (within her email on 21 August 2024), she did not express dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of the parking issues. If the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord has dealt with such issues, she may choose to make a further complaint, then refer it to this Service for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. However, we will assess any complaint handling failures within the relevant section of this report.

Public access through the resident’s garden

The resident’s tenancy agreement does not contain a plan showing the curtilage or boundaries of the property. However, it does state that the resident has the right to occupy the property without interruption or interference by the landlord, as long as she complies with the terms of the agreement and has respect for the rights of other tenants and neighbours.
The evidence suggests that in 2023, the resident asked the landlord to review the use of the gates and access between the 3 properties. We asked the landlord to provide documentary evidence of this request. As it was unable to do so, we have been unable to assess the timeliness of its response to the resident. However, it is evidence of poor record keeping. Nevertheless, on 6 June 2023, the landlord informed the resident in writing that it had decided to “no longer allow [the neighbours] access” through the side gate. It said it had based its decision on the following reasons:
1. There was alternative access to the properties.
2. To provide privacy for residents.
3. To reduce complaints regarding parking alongside the gate.
At first sight, this was an appropriate response from the landlord as it showed that it had taken the resident’s circumstances and concerns into account. However, within an internal email on 9 May 2025, the landlord stated that it had made the decision to allow the resident to lock the gate “without referring the matter to [its] legal services for advice”. We therefore find that although the landlord seemingly had good intentions in this instance, it acted inappropriately, and we would expect it to make such decisions about property boundaries based on the advice and guidance of its qualified staff.
Between June 2023 and December 2023, we have seen no evidence that the resident requested information from the landlord about public access through her garden. However, the evidence shows that during the same period, Neighbour A and the landlord were in a dispute about the restricted access through the resident’s garden and the matter was ultimately taken to court at the pursuit of Neighbour A. The resident said that because the landlord did not inform her about the ongoing legal dispute (and she was informed by Neighbour A), she felt it ultimately caused further tensions between her and the neighbours. We have seen no evidence that the landlord was legally obliged to inform the resident about the upcoming court case with Neighbour A. Despite this, given the easement had a direct impact on the resident, it would have been courteous for the landlord to provide her with an update at the earliest opportunity. The importance of effective communication is highlighted.
The evidence suggests that the landlord contacted the resident on 4 January 2024 and asked her to remove the lock on the gate. Based on the available evidence, it is reasonable to assume that this was done in anticipation of an upcoming court hearing (between the landlord and Neighbour A) on 18 January 2024. However, we have seen no documentary evidence of this phone call (such as contemporaneous call notes), which is a further record keeping failure.
The same day (4 January 2024), the resident provided the landlord with photographic evidence to show that she had removed the lock from the gate and asked it to confirm if a lock with a key code could be installed in its place. The evidence suggests that the landlord appropriately took forward her request to Neighbour A, but it was rejected.
The court order (dated 2 February 2024, but granted at the hearing on 18 January 2024) stated that:
1. Neighbour A had an “enforceable legal right to the benefit of a pedestrian right of way over the [resident’s] property and the easement which is owned by [the landlord] is set out in Neighbour A’s property title deeds”.
2. The landlord had already removed the lock from the gate but was permitted to install a latch.
3. The landlord was ordered to not obstruct Neighbour A’s “lawful and rightful continued use of the easement running between [the properties]”.
On 24 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord. She said that she required further clarity about access through her garden and asked the landlord to confirm if it was only Neighbour A who had legal access or was it a “public right of way”. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s email the same day and advised her that it had requested further information from its legal team. However, we have seen no evidence that it provided her with any further update or clarification on the matter. This was unreasonable and caused the resident to feel ignored.
We find the landlord’s stage 1 response, in relation to the resident’s request for information about public access to her garden, inadequate. This was because its stance that the resident had “right over her garden” conflicted with the facts that had been established during the court hearing in January 2024. It also failed to provide the resident with any evidence or clarity about third-party access through her garden. We will make a further assessment of the landlord’s stage 1 response within the complaint handling section of the report.
Following the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 (on 11 July 2024), the landlord provided her with a copy of the court documents on 25 July 2024. This was 190 calendar days, or over 5 months, after the landlord had received the outcome of the court hearing in writing (on 2 February 2024). Taking into account the resident’s numerous requests for clarity on the easement, we find this an unacceptable delay.
The following day (26 July 2024), the resident requested further clarity from the landlord about the content of the court documents. The landlord notified the resident (within its stage 2 response on 29 August 2024) of the right of way granted to Neighbour A through her garden. The practical effect of this was that the neighbour and anyone wanting to access Neighbour A’s property was entitled to do so, via the right of way. The landlord was bound by the court’s decision and therefore this was a fair response. However, we find that it should have aimed to provide the resident with answers to her questions sooner, as this should have had no bearing on the outcome of the complaint investigation.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it told the resident that “according to [its] records, there was no information about the use of [her] garden or path, and [it did] not capture information about pathways”. While the evidence supports the landlord’s stance that it was not aware of the easement (prior to Neighbour A providing evidence of this), we find its lack of knowledge about the boundaries of a property it owned concerning. Additionally, the landlord told the resident that had it been aware of the easement (before her tenancy commenced), it was not obliged to inform her about it. While we have seen no evidence that landlord had any legal obligation to inform the resident about easements, it is good practice for landlords to be transparent and inform their residents about any such issues that may affect their tenancy or property, before moving in. Therefore, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to address the matter.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states that it will offer up to £250 for “low impact” distress and inconvenience. We therefore find that the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation at stage 2 was low, and that it failed to take into account the resident’s personal circumstances and the inconvenience it had caused her.
Although not directly related to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about public access through her garden, it is important to note that within the landlord’s evidence submission (in May 2025), it told us that it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household on its internal systems. This is concerning, as we have seen documentary evidence that the resident informed the landlord on several occasions that her daughter had disabilities. We find that the landlord should have captured this information to ensure it was providing the resident and her family with consistent and necessary support. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to address the matter.
Overall, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about public access through her garden. This is because:
1. Its communication with the resident was inconsistent and lacking.
2. Its record keeping was poor.
3. There is disparity between the amount of compensation awarded and the level of redress that we consider is needed to put things right.
As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional amount of compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation procedure and our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, the policy states the landlord will inform the customer as soon as possible and provide a new target date for the decision. It permits an extension of 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.
The resident raised her complaint on 4 July 2024, and the landlord acknowledged it on 9 July 2024. This was a timeframe of 3 working days, and in accordance with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states that at each stage of the complaints process, complaint handlers must give the resident a fair chance to set out their position. The landlord’s complaints procedure also adopts this approach. The landlord said (within its acknowledgement email on 9 July 2024) that it had tried to call the resident to discuss the complaint “but [her] phone was switched off”. This was appropriate. However, we have seen no documentary evidence of this phone call (such as contemporaneous call notes), which is evidence of poor record keeping. It is also at odds with the landlord’s complaints procedure, which states all phone calls and notes must be added to its case management system. Moreover, we find that prior to the landlord issuing its stage 1 response, it would have been appropriate for it to attempt to contact the resident again to discuss the complaint and the outcomes sought. Its failure to do so meant that it did not have a clear understanding of her complaint.
The landlord dated its stage 1 response as 10 July 2024. However, the evidence shows that it did not provide the resident with a copy of the response until the following day (11 July 2024). This is a further record keeping failure. Nevertheless, this was a response time of 2 working days, and still in line with the landlord’s complaint handling timescales.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it apologised to the resident for “the inconvenience caused” but did not specifically state what failings it had identified within its service delivery. Although not obligated to do so, it is good practice for landlords to provide a timeline of events within formal complaint responses. This allows them to demonstrate that they have undertaken a comprehensive investigation and considered all the facts within the case. Additionally, given that the landlord apologised to the resident, we find that it would have been appropriate for it to consider the guidance outlined in its compensation procedure and offer her an appropriate amount of compensation. Its failure to do so was not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 11 July 2024. The landlord appropriately acknowledged her request within 4 working days (on 17 July 2024).
The landlord then contacted the resident on 14 August 2024. It advised her that it required more time to undertake its stage 2 investigation and would aim to provide her with the response by 28 August 2024. This was in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
The landlord dated its stage 2 response as 27 August 2024. However, the evidence shows that it did not provide the resident with a copy of the response until 29 August 2024. This is a further record keeping failure. The actual response date was also beyond the target date it had previously committed to. In mitigation, it was still within the extended timescales permitted by the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code (40 working days).
As mentioned earlier in the report, within resident’s email to the landlord on 21 August 2024 (where she told it what issues she wanted it to address in its stage 2 response), she requested information from the landlord about the ownership of the lay-by in front of her property. It was positive that the landlord provided this information to the resident within its stage 2 response. While not obligated to so, in this instance it would have been appropriate for the landlord to include an “other matters” section within its complaint response or provide her with an update within a separate response. Its failure to provide clarity about what issues it was formally investigating caused the resident feelings of confusion on what matters this Service was subsequently able to investigate.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that when it issues complaint responses, it will inform the customer whether the case is “upheld, partially upheld or not upheld”. At both stages of the complaints process, we have seen no evidence that the landlord did this. Landlords should aim to provide clear explanations about the outcome of complaint investigations.
Taking all failings into account and balancing these against the timescales involved and level of impact, we have made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation procedure and our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about public access through her garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman by the same date:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £350 compensation. This must be paid directly to her and is made up as follows:
  1. £250 for its handling of her request for information about public access through her garden. This includes the landlord’s offer of £50 at stage 2, and an additional £200 for the failings identified in this report.
  2. £100 for its handling of her complaint.
  3. For the avoidance of any doubt, if any of the compensation that the landlord previously offered the resident has already been paid, it can be deducted from the total above.
3. Contact the resident to obtain accurate and up-to-date details of her household’s vulnerabilities, including any health conditions she wishes to disclose and any associated needs/impacts, and ensure its records are updated accordingly.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord reviews how it:
1. Obtains and records information about property easements on its internal systems.
2. Informs any current or future tenants about easements that may affect their tenancy or property.
On 23 September 2025, the resident told us that the landlord has not responded to her recent request to make a complaint (about its handling of her reports of ASB). Therefore, if it has not already done so, we recommend that the landlord responds to the resident within the timescales outlined in the Code.