Hyde Housing Association Limited (202410232)

Decision
Case ID	202410232
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 May 2026

Background

1. In December 2023, we investigated a complaint from the resident about water leaks. We ordered the landlord to pay £1,500, including £1,000 for distress and inconvenience and £500 for complaint handling failures. We also ordered it to consider additional compensation for repair delays after its final complaint response. It agreed to a further sum of £500. We recommended the landlord contact the resident about insect infestation reports and damage to belongings they attributed to the leaks. The resident raised a further complaint about the landlord’s response to their reimbursement requests. The resident has since passed away.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reimbursement requests for damaged personal property, pest control materials and electrical items.
   2. Complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reimbursement requests.
4. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reimbursement requests.

5. The landlord contacted the resident about their reimbursement requests, which was appropriate. However, it used the wrong email address which caused delays. It also could have assessed what evidence was available before concluding that it could not make a decision on the requests.

Complaint handling.

6. There were delays in responding to the resident’s complaint and escalating it to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged these delays, apologised, and offered compensation. We consider that offer to be proportionate and sufficient to address the identified shortcomings in its complaint handling.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay compensation of £415 to the resident’s Estate, made up of: £50 for its handling of reimbursement requests. £365 as a contribution towards the resident’s financial loss. The landlord must provide documentary evidence that it has made a reasonable attempt to pay compensation to the resident’s Estate by the due date.	No later than 08 July 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 March 2024	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. They said they had not been contacted about reimbursement of costs. They reported that: They had experienced an insect infestation due to water leaks and purchased products to try and remove the insects. They sustained injury trying to deal with the infestation. Their books, clothes, study notebooks and food had been damaged by water leaks. Dirty water fell on their head which caused them distress and the condition of their clothes affected their social life. They feared flooding over a period of 3 years. They purchased bulbs, sockets and extension leads because the leaks affected their lighting and electrical fittings.
19 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It: Partially upheld the complaint. Apologised for delays, which it said were caused by its use of an incorrect email address. Asked the resident for evidence of damaged items so it could consider reimbursement. Said it understood the resident was seeking reimbursement of £2,000 to £3,000. Said that treating the insect infestation and dirty water falling on the resident’s head had been reflected in the compensation previously ordered by the Ombudsman. Apologised for further delays in responding to emails about reimbursement.
26 April 2024	The resident escalated their complaint. They said they could not provide further evidence because the damaged items had been disposed of. They said the landlord should rely on photographs it already held and not continue to ask them for information they could not provide.
13 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It did not find failure in relation to its response for reimbursement for damaged items. There had been failures in its complaint handling and it awarded compensation of £200, made up of: £100 for its delay in responding. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to escalate the complaint. It had followed its policies and procedures and had not received the information it requested to assess reimbursement. It would still consider a reimbursement payment if evidence was provided. Insects and dirty water falling on the resident’s head were included in the original Ombudsman compensation order.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 5 November 2024 the resident asked us to investigate their complaint. They remained unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.
16 May 2025	The landlord told us that the resident passed away on 2 March 2025.

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 response to reimbursement requests.
Finding	Service failure

7. The resident’s concerns about the distress caused by the previous water leaks were investigated and addressed in our previous determination. We are therefore unable to revisit them as part of this investigation. The resident also reported sustaining an injury while dealing with the insect infestation. Matters relating to personal injury fall outside of our jurisdiction and have therefore not been considered. However, the reimbursement of costs for pest control materials was not addressed in our previous determination and has therefore been considered as part of this investigation. Although the resident has passed away, we are able to investigate the complaint for the benefit of their Estate as it was referred to us prior to their death.
8. Following our previous determination, the landlord contacted the resident about their requests for reimbursement. The landlord later identified it had used an incorrect email address. The landlord should have had accurate contact details recorded. The use of the wrong address led to avoidable delays.
9. Between March 2024 and April 2024 there were several exchanges between the resident and the landlord. The resident said they were seeking reimbursement for personal items damaged by the earlier leaks. They also sought reimbursement for electrical and pest control items they purchased to address issues they said were caused by the leaks. The landlord incorrectly told the resident that pest control costs were considered in our original determination.
10. The landlord requested evidence including receipts, photographs, the age of the items and full descriptions. The resident repeatedly explained they had no receipts or photographs and said they had not been advised these were needed at the time. The resident sent video footage which the landlord said it could not access. The resident also advised that the landlord’s contractor had taken photographs and suggested the landlord review those records.
11. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask for evidence and it would have been helpful for the resident to provide a more detailed inventory, where possible. However, the landlord did not show that it made sufficient efforts to access the video evidence provided or to review any records already held by it or its contractor. It was also unreasonable for the landlord to continue requesting evidence that the resident said they could not provide.
12. Taking into account the delays caused by the use of an incorrect email address and the landlord’s limited action to obtain and assess available evidence, we find service failure in its handling of the reimbursement requests. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation to reflect these shortcomings.
13. The resident said they incurred losses of £2,000 to £3,000. As no receipts or detailed inventories are available, the exact value of the items cannot be established. However, we do not consider that the landlord gave sufficient regard to the information it had. The landlord was also aware that previous leaks had affected the wardrobe where the items were stored. We therefore consider it is fair and appropriate for the landlord to make a financial contribution to recognise the losses the resident said they incurred.
14. We find that on the balance of probabilities, the resident suffered a financial loss but was not able to provide certain evidence, such as proof of purchase. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £365 to the resident’s Estate, to recognise that the resident incurred financial loss which cannot be precisely quantified. This amount reflects the likely cost to replace the used clothing and education items described and the likely cost of the electrical, food and pest control items purchased. This is broken down as follows:
    1. £200 for clothing.
    2. £100 for educational books.
    3. £50 for pest control and electrical items.
    4. £15 for packaged food.

 

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

15. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints and complaint escalations within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
16. The landlord issued its stage 1 response after 33 working days and its stage 2 response after 109 working days. These response times were significantly outside the landlord’s published timescales.
17. The landlord acknowledged these delays, apologised and offered £200 compensation for its complaint handling. The apology was appropriate and the amount of compensation falls within both the landlord’s policy guidance and our compensation guidance.
18. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord has provided proportionate redress for its complaint handling shortcomings. The landlord has taken appropriate steps to recognise the impact of its failings and put matters right in line with our dispute resolution principles.

 

 

Learning

19. There may be cases that fall outside of the insurance process, where there is likely to be financial loss that cannot be fully evidenced. The landlord could consider alternative means of assessing loss to inform a reasonable decision in such cases.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord should ensure that contractor evidence is accessible. This would allow relevant information, such as inspection photographs, to be reviewed when assessing reimbursement requests.

Communication

21. There is learning that the landlord can take from this investigation around improving its communication. This includes ensuring it has correct contact details and not making repeat requests when a resident says they can’t provide information.