Hyde Housing Association Limited (202402568)

Decision
Case ID	202402568
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 March 2026

Background

1. The resident reported to the landlord that the vent in her kitchen was making a loud noise. The landlord inspected the vent and arranged for it to be replaced. The resident was dissatisfied with the time taken to complete the work. She said that the contractors missed several appointments and at other times could not complete the work due to miscommunication. The resident also said that not having a functioning vent during this period resulted in condensation and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the kitchen vent replacement.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failures identified in its handling of the kitchen vent replacement.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the kitchen vent replacement

5. The landlord unreasonably delayed completing the work after it had identified replacement was needed. The resident experienced several failed appointments. The landlord acknowledged the impact this had and put things right in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

6. The landlord responded to the complaint at both stages within the timescales set out in its policy. Although it acknowledged the stage 2 escalation late, this did not impact the overall response timescale.

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.

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 £200 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for its handling of the kitchen vent replacement is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 February 2024	The resident raised dissatisfaction about cancelled appointments. She said that on 12 February 2024 the landlord attended the property but could not complete the work because the contractor brought the wrong unit. She also said that the delays were causing a build‑up of condensation.
22 February 2024	The landlord upheld the stage 1 complaint and acknowledged it should have acted much sooner. It offered the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It confirmed its contractor attended the property on 21 February 2024 and would return to complete the work.
11 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the repair was still outstanding and that she first reported problems with the vent on 14 May 2023. She confirmed that a contractor attended the property in the morning but required new parts. She said she had to take time off for appointments, had no ventilation after the last visit, and the area looked untidy.
16 April 2024	The landlord issued its final response. It upheld the complaint and increased its compensation offer to £250, broken down as follows: £50 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaint process £50 for customer effort £50 for delay in completing repairs £100 for distress and inconvenience The landlord acknowledged and apologised for poor communication, delays, the distress caused, and the effort the resident had to make to chase the repair. It had scheduled an appointment for 18 April 2024 to complete the work.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident referred her complaint to us, she said that she reported 3 separate issues to the landlord on 14 May 2023. She said the landlord acknowledged 2 of the issues but had not completed any. Only 1 of the issues, about the vent, formed part of this complaint. The resident confirmed that the landlord had since replaced the vent, on 18 April 2024, but the work was unsatisfactory because it had no cover and the tiling was poor. The resident wanted the landlord to rectify these issues.

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 kitchen vent replacement
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

7. The resident told us that the delay in replacing the vent resulted in condensation and mould, which caused sickness. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

8. The resident reported the ventilation issue to the landlord on 14 May 2023 through a repair report form. She said an engineer had already visited and confirmed a new part was required. We have seen no evidence of any visits or reports before May 2023, so we cannot comment on this. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to arrange appointments for routine repairs within 20 working days. We have seen no evidence that the landlord took any action until 7 September 2023, when it carried out a ventilation maintenance survey. The reason for the delay in responding to the resident’s report is unclear.
9. The survey recommended installing a new ventilation unit because the existing one was underperforming. The landlord attended on 12 February 2024. It did not complete any work because it said the ducts above the ceiling needed altering. We have seen no evidence of any earlier appointments. The landlord has not provided information to explain the 5‑month gap before it attended to implement its survey findings. At this point, it had already exceeded its repair policy timescales by almost 8 months from the original report.
10. The landlord attended again on 21 February 2024 and confirmed it had connected the ducting, but further work was needed because the vent was not extracting. It also confirmed that it needed another appointment to make good the tiles. The landlord next attended on 7 March 2024 and identified that the ducting was untidy and poorly installed. It said the previous job description was incorrect and that it needed to order more parts. This indicated poor internal communication about the scope of the work. A further appointment was required.
11. Although the main work was still outstanding, the landlord attended a previously scheduled appointment on 11 March 2024 to make good the tiling and plaster. It could not complete this work. The resident reported that the lack of ventilation was causing a build‑up of condensation. The landlord did not show that it had considered this, and it took a further 42 calendar days to return to the property on 18 April 2024 to complete the works. It would have been reasonable for it to have attended sooner, particularly as the landlord had already identified that earlier delays were linked to poor installation.
12. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
13. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging and apologising for the delay in completing the works. It recognised the distress this caused and the effort the resident had to make in chasing the repair. It offered £200 compensation for the repair delay and impact, not including the £50 for complaint handling. This amount was in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there have been failures which adversely affected the resident. It was reasonable that the landlord explained that its policy did not allow compensation for loss of earnings. The landlord put things right by completing the outstanding repairs within the timescales it had set out in its stage 2 response. It demonstrated learning by identifying that it needed to improve its communication.
14. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the finish of the completed works. We may not investigate issues that the landlord has not had the opportunity to put right first. As the resident raised this concern after the complaint process had concluded, we have not considered it further. Although this falls outside the scope of our investigation, we understand that the landlord attempted to re‑visit the property in October 2024. If the resident remains concerned about the quality of the completed work, she may wish to contact the landlord so it can address this.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
Finding	No maladministration

15. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Codes (March 2022 and April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the current Code.
16. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint within the timescales set out in its policy. However, it did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation for 11 working days, against its policy requirement of 5 working days. The reason for this delay is unclear. The overall time the landlord took to issue its stage 2 response aligned with the timescale set out in its policy. Its failure to acknowledge the escalation in a timely manner was therefore a minor failing that caused no detriment to the resident. The landlord also offered £50 compensation for the resident’s patience during the complaints process. This was reasonable and demonstrated a resolution‑focused approach.

Learning

17. Landlords should ensure they have effective systems to record the work required at each visit and accurate information about the next steps. This helps to avoid multiple appointments for the same issue and makes better use of resources. It also reduces inconvenience for residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. There were gaps in the landlord’s records between certain dates. Landlords should ensure they record all information relating to a repair from the original request through to completion.

Communication

19. The landlord recognised the need for improvement in its communication. Effective communication with residents helps to alleviate distress for residents when delays occur, as clear updates help them understand what to expect during the repair process.