Hyde Housing Association Limited (202327778)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327778

Hyde Housing Association Limited

18 June 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak in the property and associated repairs. 

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 4 bedroom house, and lives with her 4 children. The landlord has recorded the resident’s vulnerability as “disability”. Throughout the complaint, the resident reported to the landlord that she had mental health vulnerabilities and was a carer for her 3 disabled children.
  2. The landlord’s file suggests the resident reported a leak to the landlord on 1 September 2023.
  3. On 15 September 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint over the phone. On the same day, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that it should have completed the repair sooner and apologised. It advised the resident to make an insurance claim for any damaged items. It offered £300 in compensation. It broke it down into £100 for delays, £50 for customer effort, and £150 for distress and inconvenience. The landlord further said it would arrange for the leak to be repaired on 25 September 2023, as well as the electrics looked at, and a mould and damp treatment. 
  4. On 18 September 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. She said she was not satisfied as the leak had not been addressed, her bedroom carpet was “soaking wet” and it smelt like “sewerage”. She said the floorboards were also wet and there was black fungus. She added that since returning from hospital she was unable to sleep in her own room as she felt unwell.
  5. The resident posted her complaint issues on social media on 22 September 2023. On 25 September 2023 the landlord noted that the leak was under the bath and it had fixed this. However, the resident reported as part of further escalation to the landlord that more damage had been caused by the repairs and the damp and mould had not been resolved. 
  6. On 10 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had delayed repairing the leak and it had not communicated with the resident to assure her when the leak would be fixed. It offered £500 compensation. This consisted of £100 for customer effort, £150 for delays, and £250 for distress and inconvenience. The landlord further said it had arranged appointments for 29 November and 1 December 2023 to do remedial work and make the electrics safe.
  7. When the resident approached us on 19 December 2023, she said the landlord did not let her know they were arranging appointments and would just show up, which was unsettling. She said she had 3 disabled children and needed to know when people were coming so she could prepare them. She also said there were still repairs outstanding from the leak. The outcome she sought was to be able to choose her carpet in her own time, have the lino replaced, and compensation. In further correspondence to us from April 2025, the resident reported that the landlord had completed some works but not to a good standard, the flooring remained unresolved and the mould in her bedroom and her son’s bedroom had returned.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns with us on the replacement of the kitchen and bathroom, and a disabled bathroom. She also reported that the mould in her bedroom and her son’s bedroom had returned and she was not satisfied with the standard of works. Given the length of time since the landlord’s final response and that these recent issues have not been raised as a formal complaint or exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, we will not be able to include in our investigation. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. The resident can address these issues directly with the landlord and progress as a new formal complaint if required.
  2. Throughout the resident’s complaint, she detailed how the landlord’s inaction has impacted on her mental health and physical health. The Ombudsman does not dispute or underestimate her concerns, but we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the landlord’s actions and the health impacts described. Instead, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s handling of the issues in this case may have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts or a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of a leak in the property and associated repairs 

  1. The tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for repairs to pipes which supply water and sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths, and sanitary conveniences). The landlord’s website says if a bath is leaking even when its empty, it’s an emergency. While there is no timeframe noted for response, 24 hours for an emergency repair response is considered a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy records that where there is a loss of use of a room that reductions to the weekly rent can be made. This includes bathrooms and any other rooms.
  3. Although we do not have evidence of this, in the resident’s social media post of 18 September 2023 she said she reported a leak on 1 September 2023. The landlord did not dispute this date in any of its responses or correspondence with the resident. As such it is reasonable to accept this was the initial date of the leak being reported. In response the landlord assigned a repair appointment for 25 September 2023 (although the date the repair was assigned is not clear from the evidence). Additionally, we have not seen any details of whether the leak was containable.
  4. The resident raised concerns about this timeframe being so far away and on 11 September 2023, the landlord said it would try to move the repair appointment forward to 13 September 2023. Two days later the landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that it had tried to attend on this date but was unable to reach the resident. The landlord also acknowledged that it should have prioritised the repairs and categorised it as an emergency. While it was appropriate to recognise this failing it still arranged the appointment on 25 September 2023, which was not a timeframe for an emergency repair. This was unreasonable given the landlord was already aware of issues with electrics related to the leak and the household vulnerabilities, which the resident reported on 6 September 2023.
  5. The landlord should have taken urgent action for both the electrical issues and the leak, which it did not even following its stage 1 response of 15 September 2023. This was another missed opportunity to act promptly in order to avoid any risk for the household.
  6.  We have seen comments in the landlord’s internal correspondence on 22 September 2023 that an electrician was not needed. It is unclear why this was said and appears to have delayed matters further. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to assign an urgent or emergency status to this appointment to ensure the electrics were made safe sooner. From the evidence an appointment for the electrics was rescheduled for 29 November 2023. This was again a missed opportunity to act quickly, and the specific inaction in respect of the electrics was not acknowledged in the landlord’s complaint responses.
  7. The landlord in its stage 1 complaint response responded to the resident’s concerns about damage to her possessions. It advised the resident how to make an insurance claim with its insurer. The liability insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s decision or the claims process, aside from passing on the details of how to claim to the resident. While we cannot comment on the likely outcome of any liability or insurance claim the resident may submit, it was appropriate for the landlord to provide details of its insurer. The landlord is entitled to use insurance as a means of managing the cost of liability claims and it would not be obliged to pay a claim itself, outside the insurance process. 
  8. The landlord further used its stage 2 complaint response from 10 November 2023 to apologise for the delays and poor communication. The landlord increased the compensation to a total of £500 and committed to making the electrics safe and conducting remedial work. This was appropriate. However, the gaps in evidence and lack of repair records supplied to us, mean that the landlord was not able to evidence attendance on 25 September 2023 to repair the electrics or to carry out a damp and mould treatment. The evidence also suggests that the remedial work did not take place until 29 November 2023 and 1 December 2023, if at all. It was unreasonable to delay remedial work and not to record the results of the repairs. It is important that landlord has effective record keeping to ensure prompt provision of service and to be able to demonstrate the action taken in response to any complaints. 
  9. In addition to the ambiguity in its repair recording, the landlord recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities as a ‘disability’ on its system. However it is clear in correspondence with the landlord that she reported mental health vulnerabilities and communication preferences. It is reasonable to expect the landlord keep adequate records of vulnerabilities to ensure appropriate allowances are made to accommodate the resident. This lack of full records affected the landlord’s communication with the resident. While it acknowledged poor communication, it did not show what steps it would take to prevent future failures as such.
  10. On 18 September 2023 the resident said to the landlord she was unable to use her bedroom due to the damp from the leak and had to sleep in the living room. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to consider a rent reduction where there is a loss of a room. Where there is a loss of a bedroom, it can consider a 20% rent reduction after the first 72 hours. We consider in the circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a rent reduction at stage 2 of its complaints process to acknowledge that the resident was unable to use the bedroom. The landlord missed an opportunity to consider a rent reduction in accordance with its compensation policy. As such, we have made an order for additional compensation.
  11. The period of time captured by our additional compensation order is from 18 September 2023 to 1 December 2023 (the date the landlord arranged works completion in its stage 2 response). This means the resident was impacted for 74 days (for the period from 18 September 2023 to 1 December 2023). This period of time and the rent level (£155.77 per week for year 2023/24, or £22.25 per day) are only indicative and used as guidance. As such, our additional compensation does not constitute a rent reduction but rather acknowledges the impact on the resident who could not have a full use of her bedroom due to the landlord’s failures.  
  12. The landlord did not supply for this investigation sufficient evidence of the repairs being completed (if at all), despite the Ombudsman’s number of information requests. While the resident reported in April 2025 that those works were attended (and not performed to a good standard), the date remained unclear. Given the lack of clarity around this aspect and the resident’s recent reports that the damp and mould have returned an order has been made below in respect of any remaining repairs related to the bedrooms and the floorings.
  13. The compensation of £500 the landlord offered during its complaints process included £100 for customer effort which was appropriate given the resident did have to contact the landlord on multiple occasions to seek answers. In terms of the delays there were delays in attending to the leak and electrics (25 days). There were also further delays (across November to December) following that where appointments were rearranged or rescheduled. Therefore, the amount of £150 included in the total compensation was appropriate to recognise the delays in the circumstances.
  14. However, the landlord did not fully consider or acknowledge the impact to the resident and her family. This is supported by the above findings about the landlord not responding to the repair with the resident’s or her household’s vulnerabilities in consideration. It is also evidenced by the lack of empathy in its complaint responses. Given this we consider the compensation of £250 (included in the total of £500) for distress and inconvenience was not proportionate to the impact the landlord’s failures had on the resident and her family. Therefore the landlord is ordered to pay additional £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  15. Overall we have seen the landlord partially acknowledged its failures and it made attempts to put things right. However it did not consider the residents reports of not being able to use her bedroom or fully acknowledge the impact to the resident and her family. It also did not seek to improve its practises. As such we find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the leak and associated repairs.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a leak and associated repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £929.30 made up of: 
      1. £500 (if not paid already) offered during its complaints process for delays and distress and inconvenience.
      2. £329.30 for the loss of the bedroom for 74 days from 18 September 2023 to 1 December 2023 (20% of £22.25 x 74 days).
      3. £100 for additional distress and inconvenience.
  2. Within 6 weeks of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to contact resident to discuss if outstanding repairs from the leak remain to be addressed, carry out a specialist inspection and provide a schedule of works if necessary.
  3. The landlord’s leadership to review the issues highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising identified improvements, which should also be cascaded to its relevant staff. Topics for inclusion include the landlord’s: approach to damp and mould, with reference to HHSRS and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report; capacity to promptly complete disrepair works and provide updates to the residents, compliance with the Code and record keeping, with emphasis on repairs logs and monitoring progress of works for internal and external contractors.
  4. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within their respective timeframes.