Hyde Housing Association Limited (202333693)

Decision
Case ID	202333693
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	4 March 2026

Background

The resident lives in a home with an enclosed passageway outside. She raised concerns in 2022 about the paint used on the passageway and the impact on her dog.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s concern about paint it used.
2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s concern about paint it used.
2. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s record keeping meant it could not show whether its actions around the painting works were reasonable. It also failed to respond promptly when the resident first raised worries about paint fumes and a potential health risk, delaying meaningful action for several weeks.
The landlord failed to follow its policy timescales and requested an extension late. It did not provide a record of the stage 2 escalation. This caused the resident inconvenience by requiring her to chase for updates.

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 01 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £225 made up as: £125 for any time and trouble caused by the delay in responding to the resident’s reports about the paint. £100 for any time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date. The landlord can deduct any amount already paid from the sum above.	No later than 01 April 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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

01 April 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £225 made up as:

£125 for any time and trouble caused by the delay in responding to the resident’s reports about the paint.
£100 for any time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date.

The landlord can deduct any amount already paid from the sum above.

No later than

01 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
October 2022	The contractor painted inside sheds and a back doorstep.
December 2022	The contractor did some more painting and the resident told them the paint had made her dog ill. The resident complained because she was not happy with the quality of the repairs and her dog had been poorly. The dog died during December. She wanted the landlord to respond to her concerns about the paint.
12 February 2023	The landlord sent a stage 1 response. It apologised for its delays. It offered £50 compensation for poor communication. The landlord said it had carried out a test, and its health and safety team confirmed there were no ingredients in the paint which would harm an animal.
9 November 2023	The landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident. It explained it had reviewed her complaint and would not be changing its decision.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns about the paint. She was distressed by the death of her dog and wanted “justice”.

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 the resident’s concern about paint it used
Finding	Maladministration

What we didn’t investigate

The resident told the landlord that the painting caused her dog’s death. We understand the death of her dog caused the resident great sadness. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the paint.

Concerns about the paint

The landlord did not provide full records of the works undertaken by its contractors from October to December 2022. This record keeping failure meant it was not possible to fully assess if its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The contractor painted some doors in December 2022. On 8 December 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that the paint had taken a long time to dry because it was cold and her dog had “been to the vets because of the paint used”. She told the landlord on 17 December 2022 that her dog was very ill because of the paint. On 29 December 2022 she told them her dog had died.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint but did not respond to her concerns about the paint fumes in December 2022. Given the resident expressed concern about a health risk and impact on her pet, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact her to ask for further information and, if necessary, take further action at this point. This likely caused uncertainty to the resident.
After the dog died, the landlord’s health and safety manager asked for details about the paint and noted the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) data sheets were not in the construction phase plan. This was a failure to monitor the contractor’s work and hold clear readily available information.
However, the landlord investigated after the dog died by reviewing the paint safety data sheet and asking the contractor for their account of the works.
The paint data sheet provided stated care should be taken to avoid breathing vapours and it should be used with adequate ventilation. The evidence shows the resident and the contractor spoke about this in December 2022 and the contractor ceased works because of her concerns. This was a reasonable approach. However, record keeping failures mean it is not possible to assess if this information was shared with the landlord at that point.
The landlord also attempted to visit the resident. It tried to ask her for the report from the vet to confirm they assessed the paint as directly contributing to the death of her dog. Unfortunately, this information was not provided. Nevertheless, the landlord actively took steps to investigate and establish responsibility.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained how it had investigated her concerns about the paint fumes by reviewing the paint data sheet and conducting a test. There is no evidence the landlord conducted a test, but it did review the health and safety data and discussed this with the contractors and its team. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take and shows it engaged with the resident’s concerns.
The landlord apologised for poor communication and offered £50 compensation. The landlord took some actions to put things right. However, it did not acknowledge the lack of action between the resident’s first report on 8 December 2022 and its check of the paint health and safety data on 30 December 2022. Considering our outcomes and remedies guidance, we have ordered additional compensation to reflect the landlord’s delay in responding and to acknowledge this adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time was not aligned to the Code. Its complaints policy is now in line with the Code. Our findings are that the landlord:
1. Acknowledged the stage 1 complaint in line with its policy.
2. Wrote to the resident after 32 working days to request a stage 1 extension. This was not in line with its policy which said it would respond within 20 working days.
3. Responded to the resident by the date it requested in its extension.
4. Did not record when it received the stage 2 escalation. It is therefore not possible to assess that its response was sent in line with its policy.
These delays and record keeping failures likely caused an adverse impact to the resident as she had to chase her complaint. We have ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not provide full records of work undertaken by its contractor. However, these events were several years ago, and the landlord has told us that is had improved its practices.

Communication

The landlord did not communicate well with the resident in December 2022.The landlord should ensure it has systems and processes in place so that it can investigate promptly when a resident raises safety concerns and communicate clear outcome.