Hyde Housing Association Limited (202315675)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315675

Hyde Housing Association Limited

26 March 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. The resident’s enquiries about the location of the external stopcock.
2. The resident’s concerns about the accuracy of information provided at the point of sale about the property boundary.
3. The resident’s reports about a faulty communal intercom system.
4. The associated complaint.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a 2-bed first floor flat. The property is within a 5-storey block of similar properties. The landlord is the freeholder of the block.
The landlord states its records do not show that the resident has any vulnerabilities.
The resident purchased the property on 2 December 2022.
The records show that between January 2023 and March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord several times asking where the property’s external stopcock was located.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 31 March 2023. She said:
1. She was unhappy with the support the landlord had provided in locating the stopcock for the property.
2. She had asked it “multiple times” to attend the property to help locate the stopcock.
3. As she was unable to locate it, the water company could not install a water meter to reduce her water bill which was “excessively high”.
4. She was being “ignored” by its legal team. She had been contacting it regarding errors in the information provided during the sale about the property boundary.
5. She had also reported in January 2023 that the intercom system to her flat did not work.
The resident states that on 21 April 2023 the water company located the stopcock. It found the stopcock in a service cupboard in a communal area of the basement of the block. The resident says the cupboard was locked with a ‘universal key’ of the type used by utility providers and emergency services. She states she was not provided with a key for this cupboard when she purchased the property. The landlord has not disputed this information.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 April 2023. It said:
1. Stopcock:
  1. The resident had contacted the estate agent that sold the property on 2 January 2023. She had asked for information about a cupboard only accessible from the communal hallway but which the lease plan showed as being within the boundary of the property. This enquiry was “responded to” on 11 January 2023.
  2. On 27 February 2023 she contacted the landlord to ask where the stopcock was. It responded the following day and advised that the stopcock was usually on the first-floor landing in the cupboard. It said if this was not the case the feed pipes in the kitchen and bathroom had turn off valves.
  3. On 28 February 2023 the resident replied and said the stopcock was not where it had told her.
  4. It replied on 1 March 2023 and explained that it had a large number of properties and its knowledge of each block was limited. It said she would need to get a plumber or the water company to help her locate the stopcock.
2. Intercom:
  1. The resident had advised that she reported the issue with the intercom to its contractors in January 2023.
  2. The contractor had not received any repairs orders.
  3. It had arranged for its contractor to repair the intercom on 5 May 2023.
3. It had not found any service failures and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
On 16 May 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. She said:
1. Its stage 1 response had failed to detail all the times she contacted it trying to ascertain the location of the stopcock and about her complaint.
2. The response did not address the issue regarding the errors in the information provided during the sale about the property boundary.
3. She had reported the intercom repair over the phone when she received a call from the landlord regarding upgrades to the fire door mechanisms in the property. She asked why the repair had not been logged correctly.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 19 May 2023. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 June 2023. It said:
1. Communication
  1. It agreed its communication throughout her stage 1 complaint was “not acceptable”. Its communication around the stopcock issue was also “very poor”.
  2. It was sorry the surveyor did not call her when it had said they would.
2. Stopcock
  1. Finding the stopcock was not its responsibility as it did not relate to the communal area. It was however sorry for its poor communication on the issue.
  2. She would need to instruct a plumber to identify the location of the stopcock. This was her responsibility as a leaseholder.
3. Boundary
  1. The plan of the boundary provided at point of sale included a cupboard which was not part of the property, but communal.
  2. It had advised her that if she agreed its solicitors could arrange to have a deed of variation drawn up. The resident said she would discuss this when her other issues were resolved. It had not heard back from her.
4. Intercom
  1. The resident had reported the intercom repair to a contractor which was calling about another issue. The contractor did not pass any information to the landlord so it could not raise a works order.
  2. As soon as she made it aware of the repair it raised a works order.
  3. It apologised for the delays however these were caused by her not raising the repair through the correct channels.
5. It offered compensation of £200 comprising:
  1. £50 for “complaint handling failures”.
  2. £50 for “customer effort”.
  3. £50 for “delays”.
  4. £50 for inconvenience caused.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her concerns. She escalated her complaint to this Service in July 2023 and it became a matter we could investigate in February 2024.

Legal and policy framework

The lease states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing common parts of the building.
The lease is silent on the timeframe for completion of repairs. The landlord’s repair policy states it aims to respond to non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The legal boundary of the property and the accuracy of the information of the information provided within the documents of sale is a matter that falls outside of our remit. While we empathise with the resident’s situation, we have therefore limited this investigation to assessing how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the boundary issue she may wish to seek legal advice.

Record keeping

It is an obligation of membership of the Scheme for landlords to provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. In this case we asked the landlord to provide all information relating to the resident’s enquiries about the location of the stopcock and the property boundary.
During our investigation we have found that the landlord has not provided contemporaneous records relating to the resident’s enquiries about the stopcock or its responses. Similar issues have been identified in recent cases involving the landlord.
Our knowledge and information management (KIM) Spotlight report states that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a landlord, which assists it in fulfilling its repair and other obligations. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself, the resident and ultimately the Ombudsman that it took all reasonable steps to meet its obligations.
The landlord’s poor record keeping in this case has affected our investigation into its handling of the substantive issues of complaint. We have therefore found that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on KIM. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Handling of the resident’s enquiries about the location of the external stopcock.

We note that the landlord was not obliged to provide information about the location of the stopcock at the point of sale. However, it would be expected to respond reasonably to enquiries from the resident about the issue.
On 7 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and asked where the stopcock was located. The landlord’s contact log says that it replied on 13 February 2023, but the records do not detail the content of its response. We cannot therefore assess whether the response was reasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated that the resident contacted it again on 27 February 2023. The landlord says it responded the following day and told her the stopcock was usually on the first-floor landing in the cupboard. It is noted that we have not seen contemporaneous evidence of the resident’s enquiry or the landlord’s response. However, the resident has not disputed the landlord’s comments.
The landlord went on to explain that the resident had informed it on 28 February 2023 that the stopcock was not where it had told her. It said it replied the next day and explained that it had a large number of properties and its knowledge of each block was limited. It said it told the resident she would need to ask a plumber or the water company to assist her. Again, we have seen no contemporaneous evidence of these communications.
We accept that the landlord was attempting to be helpful by telling the resident where it believed the stopcock was likely to be. However it should have carried out reasonable checks to ensure that the information it provided was accurate. Such checks would reasonably have included a search of its records for plans of the buildings.
The evidence shows that on 17 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said the water company had attended and could not find the stopcock. She said the landlord had given her incorrect information about its located when she purchased the property.
The landlord later told the resident that, as a leaseholder, it was her responsibility to instruct a plumber or the water company to locate the stopcock.
We acknowledge that pipework and stopcocks are the responsibility of the water company when they are outside the boundary of the property. In this case however the stopcock was located in a service cupboard in a communal area outside the basement flat. The cupboard was locked and the resident had not been provided with a key when she purchased the property. We therefore do not consider that it was reasonable to expect the resident to be able to locate it without the landlord’s assistance.
We acknowledge that the landlord is responsible for a large number of properties. It does not however follow that it cannot reasonably be expected to have some knowledge about these properties. As the freeholder it should have access to records including plans of all of its buildings. This is particularly the case for communal areas such as service cupboards.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord made any attempts to search its own records to assist in locating the stopcock. Such a search should not have been onerous. That it did not do so was therefore unreasonable.
If the landlord’s own records did not show the location of the stopcock it would have been reasonable for it to attend the block to look for it. We have seen no evidence that it attempted to do this. This was unreasonable.
The resident clearly told the landlord that it needed to locate the stopcock in order to have a water meter installed due to “excessive” costs. That it failed to assist her will have delayed her ability to reduce her living costs.
Overall the landlord’s communication with the resident in response to her enquiries about the stopcock was poor. It also failed to provide reasonable assistance to the resident by checking its own records or attending the block. Therefore there was maladministration in relation to its handling of the resident’s enquiries about the location of the external stopcock.

Handling of the resident’s concerns about the accuracy of information provided at the point of sale about the property boundary.

In January 2023 the resident contacted the estate agent that marketed the property and asked about a cupboard which the lease plan showed as being within the boundary of her property. The estate agent passed the enquiry to the landlord. There is no record of the enquiry or its response within the information provided by the landlord. As such, it is unclear whether or not the landlord responded.
Following this communication, the evidence showcases an email from the resident to the landlord dated 27 February 2023. The resident confirmed to the landlord that when the other issues she raised had been resolved, she would be happy to discuss the deed of variation issue following the initial error by the landlord.
Following this email, there were several email exchanges between the resident and the landlord discussing the other issues she raised (considered in this investigation). A further email from the resident to the landlord dated 11 April 2023 shows that she contacted the landlord about the boundary issue. The resident stated that ‘I can only assume, as I’ve had no contact from you in well over a month, that Hyde are happy for the hallway cupboard to stay within the boundary of my property and for me to use this, and do not wish to resolve this issue either’.
Further to this email, the evidence shows that the resident also emailed the landlord about the boundary issue on 28 April 2023 and 14 June 2023. It is our understanding the landlord did not provide a response to the resident’s emails and update her about the boundary issue following her contact in April 2023. This is further supported by the fact that the landlord stated it had not heard from the resident yet in its stage two response.
Under the circumstances, the information provided by the landlord in the stage two response was incorrect since the resident had contacted it regarding this issue. In light of the above, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of this issue. The reason for this is because the landlord initially provided incorrect information to the resident regarding the boundary of the property and then it failed to respond to her when she contacted it requesting an update.
To put things right, compensation of £100 has been ordered. This is in line with our remedies guidance which states that £50 to £100 is reasonable where there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right.
Finally, we noted the landlord contacted the resident on 26 July 2023 to confirm that its solicitors had been instructed to draw up a Deed of Variation which should have been sent to the resident for approval and signing. Since it appears that the landlord has taken action to deal with this issue following the stage two response, no further action will be taken by us.

Handling of the resident’s reports about a faulty communal intercom system.

The resident first reported issues with the intercom to one of the landlord’s contractors in January 2023. The landlord accepts that the resident did so but states the contractor did not pass on this information.
We acknowledge that the contractor should have passed the report on to the landlord and that it did not was regrettable.
The first record seen by this Service which shows the resident reporting the faulty intercom to the landlord was her stage 1 complaint of 31 March 2023. On becoming aware of the issue the landlord contacted its contractor on 11 April 2023. It said the resident said she had reported that her intercom was not working in January 2023 and that it had still not been fixed. It asked the contractor to investigate the issue. The contractor responded and said it had not received any reports of the issue.
It is unclear why it took the landlord 11 days to contact its contractor to determine what had happened. That it did however was unreasonable and delayed the resolution of the issue.
Following its contact with the contractor the landlord raised a works order the same day. It asked the contractor to attend as a priority. This was a timely and proportionate response.
Emails from the contractor to the landlord show it was struggling to contact the resident. On 24 April 2023 it confirmed it had booked an appointment with the resident for 5 May 2023.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response that it was sorry for the delay in responding to the repair. It also said that the delay was caused by the resident not reporting it through the correct channels.
The landlord has not provided this Service with information to show that the process for reporting repairs was clearly explained to the resident when she purchased the property. We would reasonably expect that the landlord would have a proforma of information for new leaseholders. The landlord’s website however provides clear information about how to report repairs and there are several methods to do so. As such, we are satisfied that information about how to report repairs is made available to tenants and leaseholders of the landlord.
Overall, the landlord could not reasonably be expected to resolve a repair it was not made aware of. Appropriate actions were subsequently taken by the landlord to ensure that the repair was complete. It is noted that it took the landlord 11 days to contact its contractor to ascertain what had happened on receipt of the resident’s complaint. While the reason for the delay is unclear, we consider this to have been a shortcoming as opposed to a failing when taking into account the circumstances relating to this complaint as a whole.

Handling of the associated complaint.

It took the landlord 14 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. While not an excessive delay this timeframe is not in line with the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) or the landlord’s own policy. We also note that it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response letter. It therefore missed an opportunity to put things right.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not address the resident’s concerns about errors in the information provided about the property boundary. The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint, the landlord did not do so in this case. This was unreasonable.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within the timeframes outlined in the Code and its own policy. It also addressed all of the issues of complaint.
Within its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its “very poor” communication. It is right that it did so.
The landlord also said in its stage 2 complaint response that it was not responsible for finding the stopcock as it did not relate to the communal area. This was not correct as the stopcock was in fact within a communal area and inaccessible to the resident.
The landlord apologised for some failings and offered the resident £200 compensation. It is not clear however which element of the complaint some of its compensation offers relate to. “Delays”, “customer effort”, and “inconvenience caused” may relate to its complaint handling or to its handling of the substantive complaint.
We also note that the landlord has not acknowledged or provided redress for its handling of the resident’s concerns about the stopcock. We have therefore ordered further compensation.
The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out complaint handling training. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. We have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord. We will however continue to monitor the landlord’s compliance with previous orders made. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Did not respond to the stage 1 complaint within the timeframes outlined in the Code and its policy. It then failed to apologise for this.
2. Failed to address all issues of complaint within its stage 1 response.
3. Did not identify the failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the stopcock.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about the location of the external stopcock.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the accuracy of information provided at the point of sale about the property boundary.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a faulty communal intercom system.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in the report in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £700 compensation comprising:
  1. £350 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience due to failings in its handling of enquiries about the stopcock.
  2. £250 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience due to its handling of the complaint.
  3. £100 for the failings identified regarding it’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the accuracy of information provided at the point of sale about the property boundary.
3. The compensation ordered includes the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation made in its stage 2 complaint response. If it has paid this compensation, it should be deducted from the ordered amount.