Hyde Housing Association Limited (202323792)

Decision
Case ID	202323792
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	9 February 2026

Background

The resident complained about the way her garage rent was being charged since her landlord took over the tenancy from the previous landlord in 2016. She was concerned that the landlord was increasing the garage rent at a higher rate than the rent for the property. She felt the garage and the property were one premises and should be increased at the same rate. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to these concerns.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The level of rent increase applied to the garage rent.
2. The landlord’s handling of queries about the garage rent and service charges.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. The complaint about the level of rent increase applied to the garage rent is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of queries about the garage rent and service charges.
3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The level of rent increase applied to the garage rent.

The complaint about the rent increase on the garage rent is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Queries concerning the garage rent and service charges

The landlord appropriately sought legal advice about its position, however it has not evidenced that it fully considered the terms in the tenancy which permit it to increase the rents. It appropriately explained its response to the resident’s request for a service charge statement.

Handling of the complaint

The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays in its complaint handling and offered proportionate compensation to put things right.

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 09 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling of her queries about the garage rent and service charges. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 09 March 2026
3	Take specific action order The landlord must seek further legal advice about the way it is permitted to increase the overall rent and the allocated amounts. It must explain its position and any proposed remedy if relevant. It must notify the resident and us of the outcome in writing by the due date.	No later than 09 April 2026

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 £250 compensation it offered for its complaint handling failures. This is because our finding of reasonable redress was made partly on the basis that this amount was paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 February 2021	The resident complained to the landlord. She believed she had been overcharged for the garage rent from April 2017 to date. She said she was aware the landlord had made rent refunds and adjustments for other tenants where there had been errors in charges. She also requested a copy of the actual service charges rather than the estimated amounts.
3 May 2021	The resident requested that her complaint be considered as a formal complaint.
2 June 2021	The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 and advised there could be a 6 week delay before she was contacted.
27 July 2021	The resident wrote to her MP for assistance with her complaint.
28 July 2021	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised for its delayed response. It said: There were 2 main types of tenancy used by the previous landlord. While most of them confirmed that the premises were recorded as the property and the garage, it was the way the charges were laid out that determined how they could be charged. In the resident’s tenancy it stated the garage was included in the letting of the property. However, the garage charge was separated out from the rent and service charges. This differed from other tenancies where only the rent and the service charge were listed as applicable charges. It sought legal advice which confirmed where the charge was documented separately, the landlord was able to charge it separately and apply increases that differ to the increase in rent. Previously garage charges had followed the same rent increase as rent charges, increasing by Consumer Prices Index (CPI) plus 1%. It was in the process of reviewing accounts where a garage was attached and had created a new team to investigate and address concerns. As the resident paid a fixed service charge, these were based on services offered and it could only charge what it had budgeted so she would not receive a statement. It offered compensation of £75 for its handling of the complaint, comprising of £50 for delays and £25 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
10 August 2021	The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She disagreed with the landlord’s position.
6 September 2021	The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation request and said it would respond by 17 September 2021.
30 September 2021	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It repeated its position as per the stage 1 response. It added: It could not explain why the previous landlord used different tenancy agreements which unfortunately led the resident to experience a different approach to rent increases for the garage. It increased its compensation to £125 due to its delays in handling the complaint.
21 September 2023	The landlord served the resident with Notice Seeking Possession (NSP), due to rent arrears.
27 September 2023	The resident raised a complaint. She said the landlord had ignored her complaint of 26 February 2021 and sent the NSP without trying to discuss the matter. She believed the landlord had changed her tenancy without consultation.
10 November 2023	The landlord considered the resident’s email and decided to review its decision. Providing its third and final response, it repeated its findings at stage 1 and stage 2 of its investigation in 2021. It increased its offer of compensation for complaint handling failures to £250. This comprised of: £100 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaints process. £50 for the resident’s effort. £100 for the initial complaint handling failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us in November 2023. She explained the matter was causing great stress. She wanted a face to face meeting to discuss the tenancy. She also wanted the landlord to put right and adjust the amounts on the original tenancy agreement and pay back refunds due to her.

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 rent increase applied to garage rent
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

We do not investigate complaints about the level or increase of rent or service charges. As the resident’s complaint centres on the increase that was applied to the garage rent, the complaint is ultimately about the level or increase of rent and so we will not investigate it. The tribunal or court are more likely to be best placed to consider this matter, given their powers and expertise.

Complaint	Queries concerning the garage rent and service charges
Finding	Maladministration

We can consider the landlord’s communication, including its response to the concerns raised about specific charges and the services provided (in line with our dispute resolution principles).
The resident’s tenancy agreement lists the “premises” as the property and the garage. It sets one rental figure which at the time was £397.08. It then allocated amounts within the rent for the property, a service charge and garage rent. The tenancy also sets out that the landlord can increase or decrease rent in accordance with Section 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988.
The resident raised her concerns about the amounts being charged in relation to her garage rent on 26 February 2021. She felt she had been overcharged as the landlord was increasing the garage rent at a higher rate compared to increases on the property rent. She also wanted an actual service charge statement rather than an estimated one. Having not received a response, she chased the matter in March 2021 and May 2021 and asked that the landlord consider this a formal complaint. We have not seen any evidence to show it responded to her query about the garage rent which was not appropriate.
The landlord responded on 16 March 2021 to advise her that it would send an actual statement in September but that her query had been passed on to the service charge team. However, she continued to chase the landlord in June and July 2021. Overall, the landlord took 5 months to respond to all of the concerns raised, which was an unreasonable timescale. We have not seen any evidence that it kept her updated about its actions, explained the delay nor anything suggesting the delay was unavoidable.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord explained it had taken legal advice which supported its position. It was appropriate for it to obtain legal advice, rely on it and set out its reasoning. However, we do not consider the landlord’s investigation into this matter to be thorough. This is because the tenancy refers to the landlord’s ability to increase rents under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988. There is no evidence that it has considered whether its increased rent rates were in accordance with these provisions. We have made an order for it to reconsider its position and seek renewed legal advice accordingly.
The resident raised her concerns about the garage rent again in September 2023 after the landlord served her with a NSP. She was unhappy because she felt her complaint from February 2021 had not been fully resolved. The landlord responded on 10 November 2023. It repeated its position from 2021. Therefore, it missed another opportunity to review the tenancy terms and its approach to annual increases on the garage rent in accordance with the Housing Act 1988.
We understand the resident feels the landlord is not applying the terms of the tenancy in the way her previous landlord did. As this involves a dispute about the legal interpretation of the tenancy agreement, this would be better suited to be determined by the courts. We can however assess the landlord’s response. Internal records confirm the landlord did not make any changes to the tenancy. However, in its response it stated it would not be able to comment on why the previous landlord took a different approach using different tenancy agreements. While frustrating for the resident to hear, it was appropriate for it to explain this.
The resident informed us and the landlord the matter was causing stress to her and her husband. As we are not medical experts we cannot assess whether someone caused an impact to health or not. However, we can consider the distress and inconvenience caused. She experienced use of time, trouble and inconvenience by having to chase the landlord for responses. Due to the lack of meaningful engagement by it, she also enlisted the help of her MP and the Social Housing Action Campaign.
It is understandable under the circumstances that the resident felt frustrated and stressed about the matter. Our remedies guidance sets out a payments range which is appropriate to put right failings where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. In ordering £200 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The resident made her initial complaint on 26 February 2021. The landlord did not consider this as a formal complaint. However, on 16 March 2021, she emailed the landlord to chase a response to her complaint. This should have reasonably alerted it to the complaint, however it was not until 66 working days later that it acknowledged it. It took a further 44 working days to issue its stage 1 response which was not in accordance with the Code or its policy. This was a substantial failing.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 August 2021. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint in a timely manner taking 20 working days to do so. The landlord took a further 33 working days to issue its stage 2 complaint response. These timescales were not in line with the Code or its policy nor have we seen evidence that it sought extensions. This was a further significant failing.
Considering these failings, it was correct that the landlord in its final response recognised its previous offers of compensation were not proportionate to the circumstances. We consider its final offer of £250 compensation to be fair, given it did not adhere to the policy timescales. As such, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was good, and we have not identified any concerns.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident could have been better as she had to chase it for updates and responses to her queries and complaints. Where delays are likely foreseeable it is good practise to communicate this with residents.