Hyde Housing Association Limited (202502206)

Decision
Case ID	202502206
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	22 April 2026

Background

1. The resident said the landlord had not provided her with a breakdown of her service charges from 2020/21 which she requested in October 2021. She also said she did not understand why the service charges had increased each year since 2021.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the:
   1. Level of increase in service charges from April 2020/21.
   2. Landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge query and request for information.
   3. Landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. The resident’s complaint about the level of increase in service charges from April 2020/21 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge query and request for information.
5. There was no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, we found:

The level of increase in service charges from April 2020/21

7. We do not consider complaints about the level of increase in service charges.

Response to the resident’s service charge query and request for information

8. The landlord provided full and clear explanations to the resident’s service charge queries. It provided detailed breakdowns of the service charges between 2020 and 2023 and directed the resident to the ‘My Account’ system to obtain more recent breakdowns. It acknowledged there were delays and gaps in its communication about the arrears. It made an offer of redress which was in line with our Compensation Guidance which resolved the complaint.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord’s complaint responses aligned with our Complaint Handling Code and were issued within its policy timescales.

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
We made a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge query on the basis it pays her the £100 compensation it offered at stage 1.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 February 2025	The resident said she wanted to restart a complaint from March 2023 because the landlord had not provided a breakdown of her service charges from 2020/21. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to provide a breakdown of her service charges since 2021.
25 February 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
26 February 2025	In a telephone conversation with the resident the landlord said it had logged a new complaint as it had been over 12 months since the stage 1 response in March 2023.
11 March 2025	The landlord sent it’s stage 1 response. It said it had sent the requested information in its complaint response in March 2023. It accepted it should have communicated better in relation to the arrears. It apologised, outlined learning and offered £100 compensation.
11 March 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not explained what had changed over the past few years to increase the service charges. She was also concerned about the amounts on the 2020/21 statement, specifically about services provided during the COVID-19 pandemic.
19 March 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation.
9 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It provided an explanation in relation to the service charge increases. It explained how it calculated estimates and actuals for service charges. It said it was not upholding the resident’s complaint as it had not found any service failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to acknowledge its failings. She also wanted it to increase the compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience she had been caused.

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 level of increases in service charges from April 2020/21.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

10. The resident complained about the level of increases in service charges since 2020/21.
11. We do not investigate complaints about the level of increase in service charges. As part of the resident’s complaint was about these factors, it would be more appropriate for her concerns to be considered by a court or the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

Complaint	The responses to the resident’s service charge query and request for information.
Finding	Reasonable redress

12. The scope of this investigation was the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries from March 2023. This is because the landlord provided a detailed breakdown of its actual costs for 2020/21 and 2021/22 in March 2023, in response to a previous complaint.
13. The resident submitted her complaint following receipt of an arrears letter in February 2025. She told the landlord she did not understand why the service charges had increased each year. She asked it to provide a breakdown of the service charges since 2021.
14. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had already provided a detailed service charge breakdown in March 2023. It enclosed its previous stage 1 complaint response. Whilst not part of this complaint, the landlord accepted there had been gaps in communication about the arrears, apologised, and offered £100 compensation. It said it had taken steps to improve future communication and service charge information.
15. At stage 2 the landlord explained the reasons for service charge increases, including external factors such as COVID‑19 and wider economic pressures. It explained how it reconciled estimated and actual charges and why it charged for services during the pandemic. It referred the resident to the ‘My Account’ system where she could request more recent service charge breakdowns.
16. When considering the complaint, we assessed whether the landlord failed, whether this caused detriment, and whether it took reasonable steps to put matters right.
17. Based on the evidence we have seen, we are satisfied the landlord answered the resident’s queries about the service charges. We are also satisfied it provided detailed breakdowns of the service charge actuals for 2020/21 and 2021/22 and estimates for 2022/23 in its March 2023 complaint response. It also directed the resident to the ‘My Account’ system.
18. The landlord attempted to put things right by offering £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused. This amount was in line with our Compensation Guidance for situations where the landlord made an offer of redress which was proportionate to the failings identified. Given the apology made, the learning identified, and the compensation offered, this leads to a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

19. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
20. The landlord has a published complaint policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales.
21. The landlord acknowledged and sent its stage 1 response within its policy timescale. Its stage 2 acknowledgement was 1 working day late, but it sent its stage 2 response within 16 working days.
22. Both complaint responses appropriately defined the issues raised by the resident. The content of the responses was adequate to meet the requirements of the Code. The responses were clear and used plain language.
23. Although there was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 complaint, there was no detriment to the resident. This was because the landlord sent its stage 2 response well within its 20-working day timescale. This leads to a finding of no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s records were sufficient to enable us to complete our investigation.

Communication

25. The landlord investigated its communication failure during its complaint process and identified learning.