Hyde Housing Association Limited (202326741)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326741

Hyde Housing Association Limited

12 June 2025

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this.

In deciding whether a complaint falls within our jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports about a leak from the toilet, causing damage to the bathroom.
2. The resident’s reports about repairs to the kitchen, and the quality of works carried out.
3. The resident’s complaint, including the amount of compensation offered.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He lives at the property with his partner. There are no recorded disabilities or vulnerabilities.
Between April and June 2021 the landlord carried out repairs to the cistern of the resident’s toilet, in response to reports by the resident that it was not working properly.
On 10 February 2022 the resident reported a leak from the toilet causing staining to the ceiling below. The landlord attended on 23 February 2022.
On 11 April 2022 the resident reported damage to the subfloor in his kitchen following a leak from his washing machine. The landlord inspected this on 19 April 2022.
On 21 April 2022 the resident reported a leak from the toilet. He told the landlord he had turned off the water and removed the toilet (as it was not the only toilet in the house).
On 26 April 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He said the toilet had broken and leaked all over the floor. He had reported this to the landlord but not heard anything back, so he had replaced the toilet himself. He wanted the landlord to reimburse him for the cost of this.
On 24 May 2022 the landlord replaced defective chipboard in the kitchen floor with new.
On 1 June 2022 the resident reported the bathroom floor had changed in rigidity and the lino had come unstuck.
On 10 June 2022 the resident reported that the kitchen floor was uneven. The landlord raised a job to cover this with plyboard, prior to the resident installing laminate flooring.
On 21 June 2022 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his reports about the kitchen floor.
On 23 June 2022 the landlord completed the job to cover the kitchen floor with plyboard. The landlord’s records indicate it also inspected the bathroom floor on this date.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 22 July 2022. It apologised for the delay responding to the complaint, and that it had not done repairs to the toilet and kitchen floor more quickly. It had not logged the toilet repair as an emergency as the resident said he had turned off the water. It had inspected the bathroom floor and found no damage. It had repaired the kitchen floor and then later covered this with plyboard. Although it was not liable to repair the plinth, as this had been caused by a leak from the resident’s washing machine, it agreed to do so as a gesture of goodwill. It offered a total of £400 compensation, offset against the resident’s rent arrears, broken down as follows:
1. £100 for the resident’s time, trouble, inconvenience and distress.
2. £150 for the delay in complaint handling.
3. £150 as reimbursement for the resident’s expense to replace the toilet.
The resident was dissatisfied with the response and requested escalation to stage 2 on or around 6 September 2022. His key points were:
1. The £150 reimbursement for the toilet repair should be paid direct to him and not offset against rent arrears.
2. The bathroom floor had not been inspected by the landlord.
3. He was dissatisfied with the standard and quality of the works carried out by the landlord in the kitchen.
4. The landlord had missed or cancelled a lot of appointments.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response dated 28 October 2022. This was emailed to the resident on 3 November 2022. The landlord said it was satisfied the complaint was responded to appropriately at stage 1, and it had not changed its compensation award or goodwill gesture. It had carried out an inspection on 27 October 2022 and found that no further works were needed to the kitchen or bathroom floor. It said it would not carry out further works to the kitchen plinths as the resident had chosen the colour it used to replace these with. It informed the resident this was its final complaint response and if he was dissatisfied he could refer the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The resident has told this Service that following the stage 2 response he continued to correspond with the landlord to try and resolve the issues complained about. Ultimately he carried out further works to the kitchen himself, which the landlord gave retrospective permission for, but the landlord did not agree to reimburse him for the cost of this.
The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 5 November 2023. He wanted the landlord to:
1. Reimburse him directly for the cost of the toilet replacement, plus interest.
2. Reimburse him directly for the cost of works he carried out to replace the kitchen frontals, worktop, plinth, flooring and subfloor.
3. Agree to reimburse him for the cost of carrying out a repair to the bathroom floor.
On 19 July 2024 we wrote to the resident advising him that the complaint was referred to us after the Scheme’s 12 month timeframe to refer complaints. The resident was advised that the assigned Investigator or Adjudicator would make a decision regarding jurisdiction.

Reasons

Paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
In this case, the landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 28 October 2022, and the resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman’s attention on 5 November 2023. As such, the complaint was brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than 12 months after it exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42.b., the complaint is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
We appreciate that the landlord and resident continued to correspond about this matter after the stage 2 response, but this was outside of the complaints process. The landlord’s stage 2 response advised the resident this was its final complaint response and if he was dissatisfied he could refer the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. The resident had the opportunity to refer this complaint to the Ombudsman during the 12 months following receipt of the stage 2 response, whilst continuing to correspond with the landlord at the same time. We have not been made aware of any extenuating circumstances preventing the resident from referring to us at an earlier point. We have also considered that there are no outstanding repairs in relation to this complaint, and that the main matter in dispute is regarding reimbursement for the cost of works carried out by the resident.