Hyde Housing Association Limited (202425028)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425028

Hyde Housing Association Limited

29 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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of their request for service charge and building insurance information.
2. The increase in the level of service charges.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

As part of her complaint, the resident has raised concerns about increase to the level of service charges from £1461.17 to £3,234.69. This was an increase of £1,773.52.
Paragraph 42.d.of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
On this basis, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the service charge complaint, the quality of repairs and its communication with the resident, but we will not consider the level or increase of any service charge payments. Any references made to this within the body of the report is for context only.
The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service or a legal professional if she remains dissatisfied about the level of service charge increase. She may also consider raising a legal claim in the First Tier Tribunal (Property chamber) for an assessment of the fairness of the service charge level and increase.

Background

The resident lives in second floor, 3-bed flat within a medium-rise block. The resident occupies the property under a lease agreement dated 15 August 2015.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The complaint centres around the information being supplied to the resident by the landlord to support it increasing her service charge in the 2022-23 financial year. The resident requested explanations and evidence of these costings and withheld paying her service charge for periods of this complaint whilst the landlord investigated this.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 2 February 2022 and said:
1. There were discrepancies in the service charge billing for the 2022-2023 financial year including “significant charges within the service charge that warrant further scrutiny.”
2. There was an erroneous charge for “landlord repair charges”.
3. She had not been provided with the terms and conditions of the building insurance policy taken out by the landlord, despite requesting this. The resident felt that most repair costs should be covered by the policy including “doors, burst pipes, leaks.”
4. She wanted clarification on what costs were covered by insurance.
5. She had raised queries on specific charges on the accounts including repairs to a broken fence, electrical repairs, mould on a fire exit door and works to the controlled door entry. In particular, the resident queried works to replace a door on the bike shed within the property and the cost of an environmental waste clean up.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 27 February 2024 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 March 2024, in which it said:
1. It upheld the resident’s complaint because it recognised that it should have communicated with the resident about her service charge complaint much sooner.
2. It offered £400 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £150 for the complaint handling failures.
  2. £150 for the delays.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. It had arranged for its service charge manager to respond to all of the service charge queries raised by the resident no later than 22 April 2024.
4. It had spoken to its lifts manager and confirmed that the charges related to lift maintenance and servicing were correct. This included both the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER) inspections and monthly, routine inspections and servicing.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 14 May 2024 as she remained unhappy with the explanation provided to her regarding the service charges.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 28 May 2024 and issued its stage 2 complaint response on 5 July 2024. It said:
1. It recognised that it “did not fully answer all your queries first time round” and upheld her complaint.
2. It apologised for the delays in issuing a complaint response.
3. It increased the compensation offer to £450, comprised of:
  1. £50 for the resident’s“effort.”
  2. £150 for the complaint handling failures.
  3. £150 for the delays.
  4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
4. It had included its buildings insurance policy, which the resident had requested.
5. It provided clarification in the supporting evidence pack to answer the residents specific queries regarding the increased service charges. This included that:
  1. Its operatives had previously attended to assess mould, but the landlord was unclear on the findings. The landlord had arranged for the resident to be contacted to arrange a further inspection.
  2. The service charge for ‘electrical maintenance’ included the landlord test and certificate required every 5 years, plus any works identified. It calculated these costs using a “Schedule of Rates charging system”, which it could not amend.
  3. It could not find an itemised breakdown of a particular roofing repair, but could “confirm these are standard costs of labour and parts which cannot be broken down any further”
  4. It had been unable to get pictures or a breakdown of costs for the removal of human waste. It had contacted its contractor, but it did not have the information on its systems. The landlord had identified the original ASB report, which confirmed that an “environmental clean was necessary at that time”.
  5. It had enquired with its cleaning contractors and reviewed photographs. It found no issues with cleaning or grounds maintenance. There had previously been issues with fly tipping, but the landlord said this had now been removed.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 27 September 2024 seeking:
1. Improved transparency from the landlord, including providing the missing building insurance details and supporting documents and providing an explanation of the coverage for accidental damage and repairs.
2. Proof of repairs from the landlord and a change in practice to ensure that it sent invoices and evidence to residents immediately.
3. Correction of “the overcharged amounts”.
4. Improve communication between the landlord and residents around service charges, increases and repairs.
5. An audit of all service charges for accuracy.
6. A commitment from the landlord to undertake more rigorous internal checks to prevent further mistakes from occurring.

Assessment and findings

Request for service charge and building information

The complaint centres around the resident’s concerns that there were discrepancies in the amounts being charged within her service charges for services provided by the landlord.
On 31 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the actual service charge costs which were incurred in the previous financial year (2022-23). The charge had been estimated to be £1461.17, and the actual costs were £3,234.69, an increase of £1,773.52. The landlord acknowledged that landlord repair costs of £124.33 had been included in error and that it would raise a credit note to repay this. It apologised for any inconvenience that this would cause.
The landlord attributed the additional costs to works to gates and barriers, new doors for the bike shed and basement and changes to the building’s insurance. It said that it would issue a cost evidence pack as soon as possible.
As previously mentioned, this report will not comment on the fairness or level of any increase in service charges raised. It will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for information.
In this case, the resident made the following specific requests for information and clarification throughout the course of her complaint. She asked:
1. Whether a fence panel that was reportedly broken by plants in poor weather could be charged against the building insurance rather than the service charge account. The landlord responded and said that this was a responsive repair and not an insured item that could be reclaimed in this way.
2. Why monthly lift services were necessary when the law only required 6 monthly checks under the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER). She also said that there appeared to be two invoices for March 2022. The landlord said that it inspected and serviced its lifts monthly as part of its commitment to good practice and reducing any periods where the lifts were out of service. This was in line with its lift management plan. It said that the invoices can sometimes be carried over if they are challenged or issued late, but assured the resident there had not been a double charge.
3. Why the electricity bills had almost tripled in price over the course of the service charge period. The landlord explained that global factors (such as the war between Russia and Ukraine) was affecting global market prices. It said that it used a broker and regularly changed supplier to ensure that residents were being charged the best rates possible.
4. What the scope of work on the controlled door entry system was and if it was repair-related why this was not charged to insurance. The landlord said it undertook responsive repairs to the gates and doors when residents reported that they were sticking. It also undertook follow upworks to resolve the issues. It said these types of responsive repairs were not chargeable to insurance.
5. Why damage to the guttering, caused during poor weather conditions could not be repaired and charged to insurance. The landlord said that its insurance was for major issues and these types of responsive repairs would not be covered.
6. Why the residents were charged a monthly electrical maintenance rate, but then charged additionally for specific electrical repairs including repairs to communal lights. The landlord explained that the monthly cost was to cover electrical servicing, testing and a 5-yearly certification as required by law. The additional charges were raised to cover responsive repairs when lights and other electrical items became defective or needed replacing.
7. Why the repairs to the bike store door were so expensive (around £17,000), when the damage was caused by vandalism and the area is largely unused. The resident felt that the costs should have been recovered from the landlord’s building insurance. The landlord said that the works included within that order were also to replace two balcony doors, and the entrance door to the basement.
8. Why an environmental clean had cost around £500 and why this was not covered as part of the general communal cleaning paid for through the service charge. The landlord said that it was not able to find the invoice for this work, as the contractor no longer had it on their system. It explained that the works had been authorised following a report of anti-social behaviour to remove “human waste” from within the building. Given the specialist nature of the cleaning, this was outside the scope of the routine cleaning of the block.
9. For clarity on the scope of grounds maintenance and communal, as the invoice provided as part of the service charge pack did not include specific details of the works undertaken. The landlord said that the block noticeboard would have a detailed schedule and that she could contact the Neighbourhood Manager for more specific details or to raise concerns, if required. It also said that it had reviewed photographs and found no issues with the standard of cleaning provided.
10. For detail about a specific repair order priced at around £3,300 and said that no details had been given to be able to identify the repair or justify the costs. The landlord said that the works were to repair a section of the roof, following a reported leak, which required scaffolding to access the area and work safely. This was the reason for the higher cost.
Initially the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for information on an ad hoc basis. Individual members of staff, such as the landlord’s lift manager, provided responses to queries, which were sent to the resident. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that these had not always been timely responses and it apologised for this and offered £150 compensation for the delays and £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
As part of her complaint, the resident queried whether the landlord’s building insurance policy should have covered a number of the costs incurred on the service charge account. This included repairs to a fence panel, repairs to the door entry system and repairs to a bike shed door. The landlord responded to the resident on 8 March 2024 and explained that its insurance policy was for “major issues” and cited fire or flooding as examples.
Within the stage 1 complaint, the landlord also committed to its service charge manager responding more fully to each of the queries on the charges by 22 April 2024. The evidence shows that a response was provided, however the resident remained dissatisfied with the level of detail and escalated her complaint. Specifically, the resident felt that the works to the bike shed door required further clarification and that the complaint response “lacked effort” and failed to enclose the insurance documents she had requested.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord provided a comprehensive response to the resident’s queries and enclosed a detailed information pack, which included the details shown above in paragraph 19. It also enclosed the building insurance details that the resident had requested.
The landlord acknowledged that it “did not fully answer all [the resident’s] queries first time round” and upheld the resident’s complaint. It increased its overall compensation offer from £400 to £450 and apologised for the delay in providing the information requested. This was a reasonable response given the delays experienced.
Overall, the evidence shows that the resident made a series of requests for information to substantiate the service charges that were raised in the 2022-23 year. These were answered by the landlord in a series of ad hoc responses and then its in its complaint responses, particularly at stage 2. This included the provision of invoices, works orders, insurance documentation and was accompanied by explanations around the scopes of works and the rationale for how these were charged.
While it is appreciated that any increase in service charge may cause distress to a resident, along with associated financial hardship, there does not appear to be any evidence of a failure to provide the information that the resident requested. The landlord has acknowledged that its response was delayed, but it has apologised for this and provided an appropriate level of compensation.
On this basis, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this element of the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy in which it commits to responding to resident complaints in the following timescales:
1. Stage 1 – 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 – 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out a number of key principles that landlords are required to adhere to in the management of complaints. This includes the following:
1. Landlords must operate a two-stage process without any additional or informal stages as this causes confusion and delay.
2. Landlords must respond to complaints within the timescales in the Code. This is 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is to avoid extending the complaint process or delaying access to the Ombudsman.
3. Landlords must not extend the timescales for responding to complaint by more than 10 working days. In cases of extensions this must be clearly explained to the resident and the Ombudsman’s details must be provided.
In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 39 working days after receipt and its stage 2 complaint response 33 working days after escalation. Both responses were issued in excess of the timescales shown in the Code and the landlord’s complaint policy.
It was positive to note that the landlord sought an extension to complete its stage 2 complaint response and provided the response within the extended deadline. The evidence shows that this enabled the landlord to collate a detailed complaint response and supporting information pack, to address the resident’s queries in detail.
In addition to this, the landlord offered £150 compensation in its complaint responses for poor complaint handling. Additional compensation was awarded for the resident’s effort and time and trouble in pursuing both the substantive issues and complaint to completion.
Overall, while there were delays to the complaint process, the landlord used the time to compile a detailed response. It also apologised to the resident for the delays and offered an appropriate level of compensation to recognise this. Taking these factors together, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this element of the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme the resident’s complaint about the increase in the level of service charges is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the following complaints satisfactorily:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for service charge and building insurance information.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Continue to respond to any outstanding queries raised by the resident, in a timely manner.
2. Consider what process changes it could implement to ensure that requests from residents for service charge information can be handled in a timely way.
3. Consider what process changes or staff training it could implement to ensure that complaint responses are issued within the timescales shown in the Code and in its complaint policy.