Hyde Housing Association Limited (202522150)

Decision
Case ID	202522150
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	26 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident applied to make internal alterations in his flat which the landlord refused. He complained to the landlord because he felt it did not reasonably respond to his queries about the refusal. He was also unhappy with its complaint handling.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Queries regarding permission for property alterations.
   2. Complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries regarding permission for property alterations.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries regarding permission for property alterations

4. The landlord provided responses to the resident to explain its refusal of his proposal for alterations in the property. However, at times the communication was confusing and conflicting, and likely caused the resident distress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It missed an opportunity to log the complaint at an earlier stage and failed to provide a correct stage 1 response following a complaint acknowledgement. It also failed to explain to the resident that it was treating his concerns as a service request, causing delays to the resident’s opportunity for a resolution.

 

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 23 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows:  £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s queries regarding permission for property alterations  £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling (inclusive of the £50 offered in its complaint responses) 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 £50 from the total figure if already paid, and it provides evidence of the payment by the due date.	No later than 23 April 2026
3	Learning Order The landlord must write to the resident and us, setting out what it has learned from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 23 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 April 2025	The resident applied to make internal alterations in his flat. This included relocating the kitchen to create an extra bedroom. On 28 April 2025 the landlord refused the application based on terms in the resident’s lease.
Between 1 May and 18 June 2025	The resident requested and then continued to seek further clarification on the reasons for the refusal.
26 June 2025	The resident complained to the landlord because he said it had given him no clear explanation for the refusal. He said it mischaracterised his proposal in its refusal, the changes were reversible, he had offered to implement soundproofing measures and asked about similar internal layouts in neighbouring flats. He said the landlord did not respond within his requested timeframes, and that its reasons for the refusal kept changing. He requested the surveyor’s assessment, responses to his concerns, relevant policies or precedents, appeal options, and confirmation of the complaints process.
Between 7 July and 17 September 2025	The resident and landlord continued to correspond about the reasoning for the refusal. After the landlord failed to issue a stage 1 response, the resident asked it to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
18 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and apologised for not initially logging the complaint. It said it could not grant consent due to lease restrictions and internal surveyor advice on potential risks and there was no surveyor’s report. It said later communications added detail but did not change its reasons. It acknowledged the resident’s mitigation proposals but said they did not fully eliminate the risks. Regarding precedent, it said it assessed applications case by case and did not have a specific policy for bathroom/kitchen alterations. It offered £50 compensation for the complaint handling failure.
18 September 2025	The resident escalated his complaint because of the landlord’s complaint handling and its refusal to review the complaint at stage 2.
16 October 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It reiterated its responses for the refusal and said it was unable to verify comparable precedents. It also said: it responded to his initial email on 26 June 2025 as a service inquiry when he expressed dissatisfaction with its response, it acknowledged his email on 16 September 2025 as a complaint as he also raised a complaint about staff conduct, it logged this as a new complaint, so appropriate teams could investigate each issue whilst he objected to separating the issues and requested escalation, proceeding to stage 2 would have conflicted with the Code it invited him to submit a revised alteration proposal that did not involve relocating kitchen utilities or modifying the internal layout
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that he was unhappy with the landlord’s responses as he felt they did not answer his questions. He said he wanted to see the technical advice the landlord had relied on to make its decision and wanted more compensation for the inconvenience caused to him.

 

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 queries regarding permission for property alterations.
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us he was unhappy that the landlord had refused his application for alterations, and that he wanted it to reconsider. We are unable to make orders relating to the enforcement or interpretation of lease terms. We can, however, assess the landlord’s communication with the resident about his queries and its response to the resident’s complaint.

What we did investigate

7. On 28 April 2025 the landlord told the resident it had to refuse consent because his proposal changed the internal layout. It explained that the lease prohibited alterations to the property layout. Its explanation was in line with its alteration policy which states that if the lease prohibits alterations, consent must not be granted unless in exceptional circumstances.
8. On 1 May 2025 the resident requested further clarification on the refusal. He asked the landlord to reference the lease clause it had relied on and provide a full copy of the lease extract cited in its decision. On 15 May 2025 the landlord provided the full lease to the resident and referenced the specific lease clause. It added it had consulted surveyors who advised the proposed plan could cause noise disturbances to the flat below.
9. On 5 June 2025 the resident stated that in its refusal, the landlord had incorrectly referred to converting the reception into a bedroom instead of the kitchen. He said that as the lease cited the landlord had absolute discretion over alterations, it should be based on accurate facts. He asked the landlord to consider sound mitigation measures he could implement and provide examples of prior approvals of similar layouts in the estate.
10. On 18 June 2025 the landlord said it had refused consent because of the proposed kitchen relocation, not the bedroom installation, and based on surveyor advice. It explained that moving kitchen appliances and plumbing into a room not designed for that purpose, and positioned above another flat, could cause noise and disruption. It acknowledged the resident’s offer to minimise disturbance but said relocating utilities created further risks, including potential leaks that could affecting neighbouring flats.
11. The landlord said it would reconsider a proposal that avoided moving the kitchen or included robust details on how the associated risks would be mitigated. On 5 June 2025 the resident had proposed acoustic underlay and carpeting, noise-reducing insulation and careful placement of kitchen appliances. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain what further measures were needed to support the proposal. That it did not, likely caused the resident confusion and distress.
12. In his complaint the resident said he felt the landlord had not answered his questions and failed to respond within the requested timeframes. The landlord replied on 7 July 2025 stating that it had answered most questions in previous emails and reiterated its responses. It said it provided those responses with careful consideration and within 10 working days of each of the resident’s emails. The landlord’s response was reasonable.
13. The resident said the landlord kept changing its reasons for refusal, shifting from layout concerns to noise and then leak risks. He argued there was no increased leak risk because the kitchen would move to the existing bathroom, which already had plumbing. The landlord said its reasons had been consistent and expanded on earlier explanations. It later added that kitchen use involved different plumbing and drainage to bathrooms, creating additional risks. The landlord took reasonable steps to explain its position to the resident at this point.
14. On 12 August 2025 the landlord said it appreciated the resident’s mitigation measures. However, they would not fully remove the risks. It said it could not confirm details of similar approved alterations without full property details and did not hold a policy on kitchen/bathroom swaps as it assessed alteration requests individually. This considered the property layout and risk factors. It invited the resident to submit a revised proposal that did not alter the layout or he could refer the matter to a tribunal.
15. In his complaint, the resident requested a copy of the surveyor’s report used to support the refusal. On 12 August 2025 the landlord said the full report was not disclosable as the advice was provided internally but summarised the key points. On 9 and 17 September 2025 the resident requested a detailed technical summary if he could not see the report. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said there was no formal report. The landlord’s responses were conflicting and likely caused the resident confusion and distress.
16. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated its previous answers. It said altering the internal layout fell within prohibited lease restrictions. It added the surveyor’s advice was integral to its decision-making process, enabling it to expand on its reasons for refusal.
17. In summary, the landlord provided responses to the resident’s queries to explain its refusal of his alterations proposal. However, at times its communication was confusing, and likely caused the resident distress. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
18. We have also made an order to apologise to the resident, in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair and put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

19. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant code is the 2024 edition. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
20. The resident raised a complaint on 26 June 2025 about the landlord’s handling of his queries regarding a refusal of his alteration request. The landlord acknowledged this on 7 July 2025, slightly outside the Code’s 5 working day requirement.
21. When the resident chased a stage 1 response on 27 August 2025, the landlord referred him to an email sent on 12 August 2025, rather than issuing a formal stage 1 response within the 10 working days required by the Code. Whilst the landlord did address the resident’s concerns, this was 26 working days after acknowledging the complaint and it did not confirm the complaint stage or give details on how to escalate. The landlord’s response was not in line with the Code.
22. On 9 September 2025 the resident objected to the landlord’s complaint handling stating it had not provided a clear stage 1 response. He asked to escalate to stage 2. The landlord formally acknowledged the complaint on 30 September 2025. Whilst this was 5 working days after the resident’s email, it likely caused confusion for the resident who had also received acknowledgement in July 2025.
23. On 17 September 2025 the landlord said it had separated the complaint into a staff conduct issue and had not yet formally responded to the alterations concerns when he requested an escalation. The Code states that any extension to a complaint response must be no more than 10 working days, and the reasons must be clearly explained to the resident. There is no evidence to show the landlord communicated the separation of issues to the resident or that it requested an extension in providing a complaint response.
24. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for not logging the alteration concerns as a formal complaint when he raised it. It offered redress in line with its compensation policy and said it had reminded its teams of the importance of correctly logging formal complaint requests to prevent similar issues in future. It was positive that it showed learning from its failure.
25. On the same day, the resident rejected the stage 1 response based on the landlord treating the complaint as a new issue. He requested an escalation. The landlord informally acknowledged the escalation that same day in line with the Code.
26. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 20 working days after acknowledging the escalation, in line with the Code. In its response, the landlord said it had treated the complaint as a service request at first then as a complaint when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its response.
27. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the landlord’s standard of service, actions or lack of action. The landlord’s complaint policy says if a complaint is made about how it has dealt with a request, e.g. poor communication, it can be investigated as a complaint. As the resident’s email on 26 June 2025 clearly expressed dissatisfaction in the landlord’s responses to his queries about the refusal, it would have been appropriate to have treated it as a complaint.
28. The Code also states that if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, it must provide an explanation to the resident setting out why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process. There is no evidence that the landlord had conveyed its reasons to the resident.
29. The resident was unhappy that the landlord would not directly escalate his complaint to stage 2. Although there was no obligation for the landlord to do this, its failure to raise the complaint when initially requested delayed the complaint process and the resident’s opportunity to escalate. This likely caused the resident distress.
30. In summary, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with the Code. It missed an opportunity to log the complaint at an earlier stage and failed to provide a correct stage 1 response following a complaint acknowledgement. It also failed to explain to the resident that it was treating it as a service request, causing delays to the resident’s opportunity for a resolution.
31. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the distress likely caused to the resident. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident in line with our remedies guidance for failures that adversely affected the resident. This is in addition to the £50 offered in its stage 1 complaint response.

 

Learning

32. The landlord acknowledged that it could have managed the complaint more effectively, However, as this was referring specifically to the logging of the complaint, we have made an order for it to set out its learning from all failures identified in this report.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord’s record keeping was generally positive and did not impact our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

34. Whilst the landlord responded to the resident’s queries in a reasonable time, on occasion its responses appeared confusing and likely caused the resident distress.