Hyde Housing Association Limited (202504943)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202504943 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Hyde Housing Association Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Shared Ownership |
|
Date |
4 December 2025 |
Background
- The resident is a shared owner and has a lease that commenced in 2009 with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom first-floor flat situated above a plant room (a space used to store mechanical equipment that is needed to keep building services running).
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
- We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
- We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord delayed excessively in dealing with the resident’s reports of noise and its investigation fell short of its policy obligations. Its findings were contradictory, its communication poor, and it did not see the issue through to a resolution.
- There were minor issues in the landlord’s complaint handling which it recognised and offered appropriate compensation for.
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:
|
No later than 13 January 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of noise. 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 |
|
3 |
Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.
What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:
The survey report must set out:
|
No later than 06 February 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £100 it offered for complaint handling, as this was the basis for our finding of reasonable redress. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
17 October 2022 to 22 September 2023 |
The resident contacted the landlord 3 times to report a constant rumbling noise affecting her flat, which she believed was related to the plant room or an air conditioning unit. She said the noise was extremely loud and was causing annoyance during the day and sleep disturbance at night. She asked that it visit to witness the noise. |
|
5 October 2023 |
The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had been putting up with a rumbling noise from the plant room for 10 months. She advised she had reported the issue and had repeatedly asked for updates and for someone to visit. She explained that the noise was causing severe sleep disruption and she was increasingly frustrated due to the ongoing delays and lack of resolution. |
|
25 October 2023 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint, stating that it should have acted sooner to resolve the issues with the pump. It awarded £200 compensation. It said it would be overseeing the commitments it had made to ensure work was completed within a 4-week timeframe. |
|
25 October 2023 |
In an internal email, the landlord said the noise the resident was experiencing was coming from the “energy centre”. It confirmed an inspection to investigate had been arranged for 27 October 2023. |
|
24 November 2023 to 13 November 2024 |
The resident contacted the landlord 4 times requesting an update on what actions it was taking with the noise. The landlord did not respond. |
|
14 November 2024 |
Due to its non-response, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint. |
|
23 December 2024 |
An operative visited and confirmed the noise could be heard in the resident’s flat. As a resolution they said the plant room would need to be insulated. |
|
10 January 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It confirmed the resident had contacted it 4 times between November 2023 and November 2024 for an update, but it had not replied. It said its contractor had visited on 10 December 2024 but had been unable to hear the noise. Another contractor had visited on 23 December 2024 and confirmed that the noise could be heard in the resident’s property. It advised it would monitor the situation to ensure all appointments were arranged promptly and attended so that it resolved the issue. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and increased its offer of compensation to £400. |
|
31 January 2025 |
The landlord conducted an inspection, along with a contractor and the resident. After the inspection it concluded that the noise being experienced by the resident was not coming from the pump room and was not associated with the water pumps. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident told us that she wanted us to investigate her complaint. She said that the noise was ongoing 24 hours per day, which caused her sleep disturbance and stress. She explained that the constant noise prevented her from working at home. She told us that the last person to inspect told her the issue would be passed to someone else to investigate, but this had not happened. She said the noise was worse than ever and she wanted the landlord to investigate it and find a resolution. |
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 of noise |
|
Finding |
Severe maladministration |
- Between 17 October 2022 and 22 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord 3 times about noise. She was clear on the impact of the noise, including the fact that it was causing sleep disturbance. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to any of the resident’s contacts. This was inappropriate and indicates poor communication.
- After the resident’s next contact on 5 October 2023, the landlord raised a complaint. On 11 October 2023, it sent an internal request for someone to attend the resident’s property to assess the noise. The email author said they needed a date as soon as possible as they had to respond to the resident that day. The staff member did not get a response, resulting in a further request on 23 October 2023. The landlord’s poor internal communication meant that the resident again was not responded to as expected. This likely caused her frustration.
- In the landlord’s complaint response on 25 October 2023, it said that an inspection had been arranged for 27 October 2023. The landlord has not provided us with any evidence that this inspection went ahead, or if it did, what feedback it gave the resident, which is an indication of poor record keeping. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its policy.
- Between 24 November 2023 and 13 November 2024, the resident contacted the landlord 4 times requesting an update, but it did not respond. Its failure to respond was inappropriate and demonstrates continuing poor communication. It would have also left the resident feeling that the distress, inconvenience, annoyance and sleep disturbance she had been reporting was not a priority for the landlord.
- Further, the lack of action on the landlord’s part shows that it had failed to adhere to its contractual obligations in the lease. The lease requires it to maintain repair or renew any gas, electrical, drainage, ventilation, and water systems or machinery located in or beneath the building and the estate. This includes any energy equipment that is not the responsibility of the energy supplier.
- The landlord’s first recorded inspection to the property in relation to the rumbling noise was on 10 December 2024, more than 2 years after the resident first reported the issue. This excessive delay significantly exceeded the time frames outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy of 30 days for routine repairs or 120 days for non-urgent repairs. Given the resident’s reports of annoyance and sleep disturbance, we consider it should have been classed as a routine repair and dealt with within the shorter time frame. Regardless, the landlord failed to comply with the requirements of its repairs policy.
- The staff member who attended on 10 December 2024 advised they were unable to detect any noise in the plant room. Unhelpfully, they did not visit the resident’s property to assess what was audible in her flat. A further inspection was arranged for 16 December 2024 to re-assess the noise. This inspection did not go ahead due to the operative’s prior inspection running over. The resident reported that she waited in all day and that the landlord did not notify her that the operative was not attending. This was unreasonable and led the resident to expend avoidable time and trouble.
- The operative who conducted the next inspection, on 23 December 2024, confirmed they could hear the noise in the resident’s property. The operative told the resident that the plant room would have to be insulated to resolve the issue. The landlord confirmed this in an internal email on 23 December 2024.
- In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 10 January 2025, it told the resident that it was raising a further inspection and that it would monitor the situation to ensure the issue was resolved, which was appropriate. The next inspection took place on 31 January 2025. The operative and contractor who attended concluded that the noise was not associated with the pumps in the plant room. They told the resident that the issue would have to be passed to someone else within the organisation to investigate. The changing position of the landlord would have been both confusing and frustrating for the resident.
- The staff member who completed the above inspection sent an internal message, on 3 February 2025, detailing their findings. At the end of the email they said, “the issue should be referred to be investigated by another team after schematics [drawings] and plans are looked at”. Unreasonably, the landlord did not provide any further updates to the resident.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 20 March 2025, requesting an update. She said she wanted her complaint re-opened because it had failed to resolve the issue. The resident invested further time and trouble in chasing the landlord for a response on 27 March 2025. It responded the same day stating that it had visited on numerous occasions but could not identify any fault. It said the resident had reached the end of its complaints process and could contact us for further assistance.
- In its stage 2 response, the landlord committed to monitoring the situation until it had resolved the issue. The operative told the resident and the landlord that further investigation was required. Nonetheless, it did not take any further action. This was a failure to comply with the commitments made in the stage 2 response as well as an ongoing failure to comply with its obligations under the lease and its repairs policy.
- Signposting the resident to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response was appropriate. However, failing to continue its investigations into the source of the noise was unreasonable.
- Taking account of all the available evidence, we find that the landlord has not conducted a sufficiently thorough investigation into the noise. The resident has repeatedly reported the issue and explained the impact it was having on her. The ongoing distress, inconvenience and sleep disruption have prevented her from having peaceful enjoyment of her own home for a period that has now exceeded 3 years. This is unacceptable.
- Due to this, we have made a finding of severe maladministration.
- In its complaint responses, the landlord offered £350 compensation for the substantive element of the complaint. We do not consider the amount was appropriate. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £1,000 compensation. Our award is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a serious failure by the landlord, which had a significant impact on the resident, and the landlord made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings we identified.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. It states it will acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If more time is required, it will communicate this delay to the complainant.
- The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint and provided the response 4 working days outside the required timeframe. It acknowledged its failure and offered £50, which was sufficient to put things right.
- The landlord subsequently escalated the resident’s complaint due to its failure to respond to her requests for an update. This was appropriate.
- The landlord delayed its stage 2 response twice, which would have been frustrating for the resident. However, on both occasions it notified her before the response was due. This was reasonable and in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord also appropriately increased its offer of compensation for complaint handling.
- As we find the landlord’s total offer of £100 reflected its complaint handling failures at both stages of the process, we have made a finding of reasonable redress in its complaint handling.
Learning
- The landlord could have avoided a finding of severe maladministration if it had conducted the required inspections sooner and had continued to investigate the issue with the noise. Closing the repair at the same time as the resident’s complaint was unreasonable and led to ongoing distress and inconvenience for her.
Knowledge and information management (record keeping)
- There were several instances of inadequate record keeping in the case. The records associated with the inspections on 10 and 23 December 2024 were either absent or lacked sufficient detail. Landlords should ensure they keep detailed records for all inspection so that they can refer back to their findings at a later date. Also, the resident provided several communications with the landlord that did not form part of its evidence submission to us.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the handling of the substantive issue was lacking and mainly reactive. There were also numerous instances of the landlord failing to respond to direct contacts.