Hyde Housing Association Limited (202317080)

Decision
Case ID	202317080
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 December 2025

Background

The resident’s tenancy began in 1992. She lives in a ground-floor flat within a converted property. The landlord holds records confirming that the resident is physically disabled, lives with sarcoidosis and is visually impaired. In 2021, a leak from the flat above caused a hole in the archway above the buildings communal doorway. The resident complained to the landlord about the length of time taken to complete the repairs. The landlord apologised and offered compensation but did not complete the repairs within the timescales set out in its complaint responses. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of these repairs and brought her complaint to us. The landlord completed all outstanding repairs by July 2024.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the communal doorway and internal decorative surfaces.
2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the communal doorway and internal decorative surfaces.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The repairs to the communal doorway and internal decorative surfaces

The landlord did not complete the repairs within the timescales agreed during the complaints process or in line with its published timescales. The resident explained the impact she experienced as a result of the delays and inconsistent communication. The time taken to complete the repairs was protracted and unreasonable. However, the landlord accepted these failings and, in response, offered the resident an appropriate level of compensatory redress. The landlord also committed to learning from the failings it identified in the delays to providing an enduring remedy for the resident.

The complaint handling

The landlord issued comprehensive complaint responses and adopted an empathetic tone. However, it did not fully capture and address all elements raised by the resident during the complaints process or commit to learning beyond its stage 2 response. The landlord failed to meet the timescales it set out and did not review its compensation offer to recognise this additional failing and or reflect on further impact to the resident.

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 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid £50 directly to the resident for the failings caused by its complaint handling.	No later than 23 January 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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 January 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid £50 directly to the resident for the failings caused by its complaint handling.

No later than

23 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord may wish to consider a review its compensation and award a further payment to the resident. The landlord may wish to use the same compensation model it used to establish and award the £400 compensation offer in respect of the acknowledged delays in completing the repairs beyond its stage 2 commitments.
The landlord may also wish to ensure that it has adequately captured and updated its systems on all the resident’s vulnerabilities and adjustment requirements.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 July 2023	The resident submitted her complaint through the landlord’s portal. We have not received a copy of the resident’s initial complaint.
14 July 2023	The landlord issued a complaint acknowledgement to the resident, and it said: It apologised for the outstanding repairs and acknowledged that it “continues to be distressing” for her. It has started painting the building, but “paintworks have temporarily ceased due to the hole above the door”. To resolve the complaint, it will enquire about the “repairs to archway and also enquire about a timeline for the completion of works”. It aims to provide a full response by “26 July 2023”.
25 July 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response that said: The completion of outstanding repairs has been a “long drawn-out process.” It apologised for the “distress and inconvenience” and admitted that it was “clear” that the repairs should have been “completed much sooner.” It offered £250 compensation to the resident. This amount comprised of “£50 for customer effort, £100 for the delays and £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused”. The repairs to the archway would “commence the week beginning 31 July 2023, lasting approximately 2 weeks and redecoration to the block to recommence following the completion of the repairs”. There may be “limited access due to scaffolding being erected in the archway, but the contractors will accommodate the resident’s access requirements.” The Asset Management and Sustainability team would be “overseeing the complaint commitments set out and the team would make sure everything is completed” for the resident. The Asset Management team would also be the resident’s “first point of contact until the repairs were completed.” It only investigates service failures that have occurred 6 months prior to the receipt of a complaint but acknowledged that the resident had “reported repairs to the archway of her block on several occasions” and despite the resident’s “best efforts”, she received “no updates on when the landlord intended to commence” the necessary repairs. It is “pleased” with the pace it has responded to the resident’s repair request following the initial complaint but it “understands that it should’ve moved forward with the repairs much quicker.” It acknowledged that it needs to “make sure this doesn’t happen again” and it must “get quicker at responding to customers when a repair is initially reported.” It is also “undertaking a number of actions within the business, to ensure it is able to do this across all service areas, especially repairs.”
31 July 2023	The resident escalated her complaint, and she said: The landlord had not taken her “current health situation and the letter written in support of health issues by the GP into consideration.” She is “anxious as a result of not knowing what the work entails, if the work will be started on time or when the work will be completed.” She also required the “correct window to be fitted, which the contractor said that complete when they reattend” but they had not completed this job “to date.” “No one had turned up today as per the response” and she has no “reassurance or peace of mind that the landlord’s word is it’s bond,” as “most” of her correspondence and calls had “been ignored.” She acknowledged the landlord had “accepted liability” for the lack of contact to her. She would not “be able to stay in her home whilst the work is being carried out as it is distressing and is triggering panic attacks.” Particularly during the 7 months that contractors were working on the windows. “£250 is not acceptable” as it fails to “take into consideration the unannounced delays and the many attempts” she has tried to speak to the landlord about problems “since 2021.” It has had a “huge impact” on her health, and she will “need therapy or time away to recuperate.” She is “registered disabled and it is noted on the landlord’s records.” She has “reported other repairs in the same time frame and not had a reply or satisfactory outcome.” She is “worried about falling debris and potential collapse.” The “stop start is very unsettling and distressing,” and she has had to “stay away” from her home due to “noise from scaffolders” and also “vandals and someone stealing planks of wood.” It had become “frightening and nerve wracking all the time,” causing her to feel “unsafe, anxious and distressed.” She added that the area had “attracted anti-social behaviour from outsiders.” She would like the compensation to include her “medical needs, and any costs/expenses to cover alternative accommodation if she cannot stay in her home.” Additionally, a sum to reflect the “distress and inconvenience.”
11 August 2023	The landlord issued an escalation acknowledgement to the resident, that said: Its “Property Contracts Manager would review the case”. It acknowledged that “the work had not started” despite the promises it made at stage 1. It understood that she was “unhappy with the level of compensation”. It would provide a response by “8 August 2023”.
1 September 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response that said: It apologised for the length of time, and “further difficulties” she had regarding the repairs. It added that it appreciated “how frustrating and upsetting” this had been for her. It confirmed that it had “moved forward” with the repairs but it agreed that it “did not repair the window or the communal archway” when it should have and it “did not communicate with any reassurance” on how it intended to resolve the repairs. It understood why she felt so “let down” and increased the offer of compensation to £400. This amount comprised of “£150 for the delays, £150 for distress and inconvenience and £100 for customer effort.” From the resident’s original complaint, it “could see that she reported that she was unhappy with the works to install new windows in December 2022.” It understood that she escalated her complaint as it did not adhere to its commitments to start the work on 31 July 2023. It also “forgot” to address the windows in its stage 1 response. But told her that it would “replace the incorrect panel of glass and also replace the internal cracks on the inside of the window”. It confirmed that this work would be complete on “29 September 2023.” It confirmed that the reason for the delays in repairing the archway was because it needed to “remove the scaffolding” and the “contractors were expected to commence works on 21 September 2023.” The contractors “attempted to speak with the resident”, when they were at the property, but the resident was “not in at the time.” The ceiling area had “suffered water damage and boards have been removed to reveal the timber, which is fine.” But it “requires a replacement ceiling.” It recognised it had “failed” the resident further by “not doing what” it had said it was going to do and told her that “final repairs should be completed later this month.”
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident raised her complaint with this service on 9 August 2023, prior to receiving the landlord’s stage 2 response. The resident said she would like the Service to investigate: The landlord’s handling of leak coming from another property and its handling of repairs to the hole in the communal doorway. The landlord’s handling of her previous complaint. She has health issues and vulnerabilities that the landlord is aware of. She would like an increase in compensation. An apology and an explanation of why the leak occurred. Any outstanding repairs from the leak or hole to be repaired.

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 repairs to the communal doorway and internal decorative surfaces
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated and why

In her complaint to this Service, the resident explained that she wanted us to investigate the landlord’s handling of “the leak from the property above” and the landlord’s handling of her “previous complaint”. Although it is not fully clear from the evidence seen exactly when this leak happened, from the evidence seen it is understood that it occurred in 2021. As a considerable amount of time has passed, and with limited evidence, it is difficult for us to provide a fair assessment on the matter and so we will not comment further or investigate the landlord’s handling of the original leak.
On a date unknown to this Service, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord about damage to the blinds in her property. She said contractors caused the damage while fitting new windows and that she had reported it to Customer Services but received no response. Within its stage 2 response the landlord gave the resident confirmation on when it would fit the correct windowpanes but did not reference her complaint regarding the damage to the blinds. We understand the significant passage of time may impact the quality of the landlord’s investigation, but if the resident wishes to raise these aspects of her complaint with the landlord, then it should support her in doing so.
We recognise that this has been a difficult experience for the resident and that she provided detailed documentation about the impact of the delays. However, this Service cannot not assess or reach a legally binding determination of the level of health impacts reported by the resident. We can however consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and whether it took account of vulnerabilities included within the Equalities Act 2010 and suitably adjusted its practices.

What we have investigated

Although the landlord has not had an opportunity to fully investigate this element through its internal complaint process, from the evidence seen we are satisfied that the damage caused by the leak impacted the communal entrance archway and the resident’s internal walls, which are adjacent.
The evidence shows the resident first reported her concerns about the condition of the communal archway prior to July 2023. These issues remained unresolved for a significant period and formed the basis of the resident’s formal complaint in July 2023. In response, the landlord upheld the complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2, accepted the repairs should have been completed sooner, and set out specific actions and timescales for completing the outstanding works. These included what the landlord committed to and when the work would be completed.
However, the evidence demonstrates the landlord did not meet its own timescales for the works it had committed to. The landlord told the resident that the works were due to commence by 31 July and would take 2 weeks to complete. But the works subject to delays and stop-start progress, with further activity still continuing after the stage 2 response issued 2 months later. Records show ongoing uncertainty within the landlord about whether it had completed all elements of the works. The landlord did not confirm resolution on the matter until June 2024, which was 11 months later than promised.
Landlords must carry out repairs in line with published timescales and within a reasonable time as set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Where this is not possible, then the landlord should communicate revised timescales with the resident. The landlord must also maintain oversight throughout the repairs process to ensure works it completes works as planned. In this case, although the landlord acknowledged its failings and took steps to progress the works, it did not deliver a timely or effective resolution. The length of time taken to complete the repairs, particularly after the landlord accepted fault and committed to specific actions through the complaints process, represents a failure to provide the standard of service the resident could have reasonably expected.
The landlord accepted its failings and acknowledged that the time taken to complete the repairs to the archway had far exceed the agreed timescales. As a result, it awarded £250 for customer effort, delays and for the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident rejected this, saying it did not sufficiently compensate for the impact on her emotional and physical wellbeing. She also said that the works had not started when the landlord had promised, which affected her trust in the landlord to keep to its agreements. Following a review, the landlord increased its offer to £400 within its complaints procedure.
From evidence seen, the landlord did not confirm the exact date for the completion of the damage to the doorway, however we can see the resident was still chasing the landlord for updates in March 2024. However, the landlord did provide confirmation that it completed all internal repairs and redecoration on 24 June 2024. It is reasonable to conclude that the delays in this case are prolonged and unreasonable. What should have taken 20 days, took 2 years to resolve.
However, on balance, we are satisfied that the landlord accepted responsibility, took steps to progress works, and provided financial redress to acknowledge the impact on the resident. Additionally, the landlord outlined areas for improvement and committed to learning from this case. Therefore, this Service considers that the landlord has provided reasonable redress for the delay in completing the repairs.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

We note the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses were clearly written and set out appropriate intended actions. The landlord also demonstrated an appropriate level of empathy when it considered how its failings were impacting the resident. However, effective complaint handling requires the landlord to do more than set out a financial remedy. It must also ensure it delivers and evidences the promised actions before it treats the complaint as resolved.
The landlord knew the resident was disabled and vulnerable, and this should have informed its approach to managing the repairs, delays, and communication. While evidence seen demonstrates that the landlord took steps to acknowledge the resident’s circumstances, the delay in confirming completion of works prolonged uncertainty, which would have been distressing for a vulnerable resident. From evidence seen, the landlord took 25 days to provide its stage 2 response. While the delay was minor, given knowledge of her vulnerabilities, it could not but have resulted in the resident experiencing further avoidable frustration.
In this case the resident was forced to continue to report non completion of the works committed to. The evidence seen shows the landlord closed the complaint without certainty that it had affected an enduring resolution.
Despite the landlord awarding the resident £400 within its stage 2 response, this did not account for any failings as a result of delays to resolution made at stage 1. Whilst we can see the landlord increased the payments for delays, the landlord missed an opportunity to recognise this specific failing in how it managed the outstanding works and oversaw the complaints process.
The landlord set out commitments within its stage 1 response to learn from the delays in delivering a lasting remedy. However, it did not effectively track outstanding actions or ensure they were progressed within the timescales it set. The evidence seen also shows the landlord did not clearly recognise this specific failing within its complaint handling or set out what learning it would take from it following the stage 2 response. Consequently, it was unable to provide adequate financial redress for this failing.
For these reasons, the landlord did not provide reasonable redress in respect of the complaint handling. We therefore find Service Failure, and we order the landlord to pay an additional £50 to the resident.

Learning

This investigation surfaced issues in managing the repairs journey to completion.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord failed to capture all elements of dissatisfaction raised by the resident within its stage 1 response.

Communication

The landlord provided well written and comprehensive responses to the resident. It also demonstrated an appropriate level of empathy with respect to the impact to her.