Hyde Housing Association Limited (202505788)

Decision
Case ID	202505788
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	16 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with her 3 adult children. She has complained about damage to her kitchen following a leak. The situation has now been resolved by the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports about the condition of the kitchen.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the kitchen.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Kitchen

4. The landlord repeatedly changed its position on whether repairs or a full replacement was required, which contributed to the new kitchen taking 14 months to complete. During this period, it failed to provide the resident with updates, leaving her without clarity on what action would be taken or when the issues would be resolved.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord was unable to provide records of the resident’s escalation request, indicating poor record keeping. Its stage 1 response also lacked clarity.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 13 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £650 made up as follows: £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her reports about the condition of the kitchen. £50 for the complaint handling failures identified. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 13 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
July 2024 to September 2024	The resident reported concerns to the landlord about the condition of the kitchen.
15 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She explained that multiple contractors had attended her property regarding the kitchen, and all had agreed it needed replacing. However, no progress had been made. She described the situation as a “never-ending nightmare”.
29 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint, acknowledging that it should have completed the kitchen repairs “much sooner”. It confirmed that the kitchen units and worktops would be replaced on 22 November 2024. It also apologised and offered £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
Unknown	The resident escalated her complaint. She said that she had received no updates from the landlord since its visit in November 2024, when she was advised that the kitchen required replacement. She reported that the kitchen remained in poor condition, with some units affected by mould.
8 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint on the basis that it had failed to complete the kitchen repairs within the timeframe it had previously advised. It apologised for not communicating with the resident regarding this and confirmed that the repairs had been scheduled for 13 May 2025. It also made a revised compensation offer of £350 for distress, inconvenience, and delays.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate on 13 May 2025. She said the kitchen was in an “inhumane state”. She explained that she had been informed the previous year that the kitchen needed replacing, but the landlord had not attended her property since November 2024.
11 December 2025	During her contact with us, the resident confirmed that the landlord had installed a new kitchen. As an outcome, she said she would like the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the time and effort she had spent resolving the issue.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the kitchen
Finding	Maladministration

6. The resident raised concerns about the condition of her kitchen on 4 July 2024, reporting that many units were rotten. The landlord attended on 22 July 2024, within its 30-day non-urgent repair timescale. However, it is unclear what work, if any, was completed during this visit, pointing to a record keeping issue.
7. On 24 July 2024, internal correspondence queried whether the kitchen was due for replacement. The landlord noted that the worktops and some units had been damaged by a roof leak, and repairs would be both time-consuming and costly. Given the extent of the damage, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider whether the kitchen met the criteria for a full replacement.
8. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 9 August 2024, adding to her time and trouble. Internal correspondence dated 27 August 2024 shows that photos of the kitchen were reviewed and it concluded that, although in poor condition, the kitchen was repairable. The landlord’s complaint responses indicate that its contractor attended on 10 September 2024 and determined a complete overhaul of the kitchen was required. However, the landlord did not progress the works, which was unreasonable. This likely caused the resident frustration and contributed to her decision to escalate the matter through the complaints process.
9. Between 17 and 22 October 2024, the landlord held further internal discussions and concluded that, due to the value of the quote received from its contractors for repairs, it would submit a request for a full replacement. In the interim, only essential repairs would be raised to address any health and safety concerns. The landlord’s “component renewal criteria” in its stock investment delivery procedure states that if the cost of repairs exceeds £1,750, a full replacement should be completed. Based on this, the landlord’s decision to carry out a replacement was in line with its policy. However, it was unreasonable that it took 3 months from the resident’s initial report to reach this decision.
10. The landlord attended on 22 November 2024 to complete essential repairs, confirming that the kitchen had been made safe. It then submitted a “component renewal form” on the same date for a full replacement. However, an internal email also sent on 22 November 2024 indicates the landlord subsequently changed its position, stating that photos provided after the repairs did not appear to show the kitchen was at the end of its “serviceable life” and that no further action would be taken. There is no evidence this was communicated to the resident, which was inappropriate and likely caused uncertainty.
11. In its stage 2 response on 8 April 2025, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its lack of communication regarding its decision not to replace the kitchen. It confirmed that further repairs had been raised and were scheduled for 13 May 2025. However, repair records show these repairs were later cancelled, and on 14 May 2025, a new job was raised for a full kitchen replacement, with completion targeted for March 2026. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated this change of plan to the resident, which was unreasonable. These repeated changes in approach, combined with the absence of clear updates, likely caused the resident considerable uncertainty, distress, and inconvenience.
12. A new kitchen was installed on 25 September 2025 – 14 months after the initial report. While some of the delay can reasonably be attributed to the time required for manufacturing, it is our view that there were failings in the landlord’s actions prior to raising the job for a full replacement. These failings unreasonably prolonged the process and contributed to the overall delay.
13. In its final response, the landlord offered £350 in compensation for distress, inconvenience, and delays. We consider an additional payment of £250 to be appropriate, bringing the total compensation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident to £600. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures that adversely affected the resident and the landlord’s original offer was not proportionate to the failings identified during our investigation.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

14. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in April 2024.
15. The timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy were consistent with the requirements of the Code. The landlord adhered to these timescales at stage 1. However, we are unable to confirm its response time at stage 2, as the landlord could not provide a dated record of the resident’s escalation request, highlighting poor record keeping.
16. The landlord’s stage 1 response lacked clarity and, as a result, likely raised the resident’s expectations. It stated that the replacement of kitchen units and worktops had been raised for completion by 22 November 2024. However, evidence indicates that internally the landlord had only discussed completing essential repairs while planning to request a full kitchen replacement. This inconsistency between what was communicated and what was planned was misleading and likely caused confusion and frustration for the resident.
17. We consider a payment of £50 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right.

Learning

18. The landlord should ensure that its complaint responses accurately reflect its planned course of action to avoid creating confusion for residents. Responses should provide clear, detailed explanations of what will happen and when, so that expectations are managed effectively.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s record keeping was generally satisfactory in relation to the repairs. However, discrepancies were noted, such as a contractor visit on 10 September 2024 that was referenced in its complaint responses but the details of this visit were absent from its repair records. This highlights the need for improved record keeping between the landlord and its contractors.
20. There were also notable gaps in the landlord’s complaint records, including the absence of the date and details of the resident’s escalation request. This indicates poor record keeping. The landlord should ensure it has systems in place to accurately record all communication with residents.

Communication

21. There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord, with the resident left to chase and seek updates regarding the kitchen. This highlights the importance of maintaining regular, proactive communication and providing clear action plans to address reported issues.