Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202333699)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333699

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 September 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 the resident’s reports of:
    1. leaks from an upstairs property.
    2. noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB) from the same property.
  2. We will investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupied the property under a secure tenancy agreement. She lived there with her partner and children. The resident reported during the complaint that she had been diagnosed with depression. Her partner (“P”) had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The landlord had not recorded any vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On 21 December 2022 the resident made a complaint that her neighbour upstairs (“N”) had flooded the bathroom for the third time. She felt it was deliberate. The flooding had caused damage to her bathroom light and ceiling and wet her hallway carpet. The landlord had already replaced the bathroom flooring. It was causing her a lot of distress. She had also made numerous reports of the noise also from the upstairs neighbour, who had children. She was not contactable outside her working hours.
  3. On 23 January 2023 the landlord replied with its Stage 1 response as follows:
    1. It had attended the property on 27 November 2022. It did not identify water coming through the light fitting on that occasion. On 22 December 2022, however, water was coming through the light fitting and the operative disconnected the light. It replaced the light the next day. It also redecorated the ceiling on 20 January 2023.
    2. There was no evidence that the leak was intentional.
    3. It told her to make an insurance claim regarding her contents.
    4. It offered £150 consisting of £50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint and £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  4. On 29 January 2023 the resident asked to escalate the complaint as follows:
    1. The landlord had not addressed N’s “behaviour”.
    2. There was a further leak on 17 January 2023.
    3. The plumber who had attended N’s flat had reported to her that N’s family was using the property as a “wet room”.
  5. On 15 November 2023 the landlord replied with its Stage 2 response as follows:
    1. The works to the bathroom had been completed.
    2. There had been delays to the works.
    3. It increased its offer to £400 consisting of £150 for the delays in its service, £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £100 for customer effort.
  6. In September 2025, the landlord told us there were no further reports about noise after January 2024. The landlord also told us that there was a further leak into the resident’s property on 12 September 2024 but from a different flat. It had already booked works on 3 September 2024 to attend on 30 September 2024. The landlord replaced the bath taps and re-siliconed the area. There were no further reports of leaks from that property.
  7. P told us, also in September 2025, that the leaks had stopped approximately 8 months previously. He sent us extracts from his landlord repair app which showed repairs into the resident’s property following a leak on 12 September 2023. The electrician removed the lightbulbs, disconnected hallway lights due to water ingress and provided dehumidifiers due to “soaked walls and carpets”.
  8. He also told us that the noise has continued. However, he had stopped reporting noise as it was stressful, and he did not feel it was getting anywhere.

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident and her partner reported that the water ingress into her bathroom was affecting her mental health, and the noise was affecting her partner. In 2022, P had provided the landlord with a report stating that he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in relation to noise reports at that time. We are unable to draw conclusions about any link between the complaint and the impact on someone’s physical and/or mental health and wellbeing. This is because claims of personal injury would have to be decided by a court of law. A court can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her household.

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks from a neighbouring property

  1. The resident made a number of reports of flooding from the property above. This included November and December 2022, February, June 2023, September, October and November 2023. The resident described the leak as flooding and by the time the contractor attended on 22 December 2022, he described it as dripping. We cannot assess the extent of the water ingress, but the evidence showed that the water damaged the resident’s bathroom ceiling which required replastering and redecorating.
  2. The leaks required several attendances at the property to carry out the repairs, including making the bathroom light safe. The resident also reported the distress and frustration of water coming through her bathroom ceiling. The resident reported damage to her decorations on a number of occasions and to her hallway carpet in December 2022 as well as, on 15 November 2023, having to take time off work. This was clearly distressing and frustrating for the resident.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately in responding to the leaks by attending promptly on the same day as the report of 21 December 2022 and checking the electric light. It both made the light safe and repaired it the following day. It tried to attend N’s property on that day. It attended the following day or 30 December 2023 to investigate the cause. On 30 December 2022, the landlord replaced the waste in N’s property.
  4. On 20 January 2023, the landlord made good and replastered the resident’s bathroom ceiling. We note the landlord had already carried out works previously. The landlord continued to make good to the resident’s bathroom ceiling following the further incidents. Following the resident’s reports on 5 and 16 February 2023, according to its repair records, the landlord raised a job to repair a leak in N’s property on 16 February 2023, though an adjustment was required. Though it was not clear whether this adjustment was carried out, these actions by the landlord were reasonable.
  5. However, there were delays to the landlord identifying and then addressing further underlying causes to the flooding. Following the resident’s report of water ingress on 4 June 2023, the landlord identified that the tiles in N’s bathroom were falling away and stated that it would repair them. If the landlord carried out any repairs, it was incomplete. On 5 September 2023, the landlord identified a hole in N’s floor and that the bath panel needed sealing. On 29 September 2023, the landlord noted on a visit to N’s property that there was grouting missing which it considered to be a possible factor for the leaks. An operative attended on 17 October 2023 and 2 November 2023. He stated he did not identify any leaks. This implied the operative was looking at pipe leaks rather than outlets for water egress into the resident’s property, even though the landlord had identified an issue with the tiles. This was unreasonable.
  6. The landlord finally put this right. On 13 November 2023, according to its repair records, the landlord raised a repair to N’s bathroom floor. It also resealed the bath and floor area. The works took place on 29 November 2023 and marked as completed on 13 December 2023. There were some final unspecified related works which were finalised in January 2024. The flooding stopped after repairs were carried out in November 2023. Given the water ingress stopped from N’s flat after then, this indicated that the issue was due to the condition of N’s floor. The September 2024 leak was from a different property.
  7. The internal evidence showed that in January 2023, the landlord reasonably considered the resident’s report that the flooding was deliberate. It did not find any evidence that that was the case. The landlord did not therefore have grounds to address this with N although, according to in records in December 2022, it said it would write to N regarding using a shower curtain.
  8. According to their notes, the plumber who attended in December 2022 considered that the issue was that N was using the bathroom “as a wet room”. He repeated this allegation in his report of 17 October 2023. It is not clear what his comment meant. The resident repeated this comment in her emails to the landlord of 11 February 2023 and 15 November 2023 which she said had been made by the plumber. We consider it was not helpful or professional of the landlord’s operative to share such a comment with the resident. It was not helpful to the already difficult relations between neighbours. The approach was concerning, particularly given the landlord identified issues with the condition of the N’s bathroom in June 2023 and there was no evidence the leaks were attributable to N. We will make a recommendation that the landlord provides a clear explanation in writing to the resident about the cause of the water ingress in order to improve the neighbour relations.
  9. The landlord signposted the resident for the damage to her carpet to her contents insurers. This was appropriate at the time of the original referral at Stage 1 of the complaints process. This was because at that time, there was no indication the water ingress was the fault of the landlord. However given the delays in carrying out repairs, we will make a recommendation that the landlord refers the resident to its own insurers so they can assess any claim.
  10. The landlord acted reasonably in attending promptly when the resident reported the flooding, it carried out remedial works to the resident’s ceiling. It investigated N’s bathroom for leaks. However, there was a significant delay before it identified an issue with the tiles and hole in the bathroom floor, and a further delay before it carried out effective repairs from June 2023 to November 2023. The incidents of flooding caused the resident distress and inconvenience for the period of nearly a year. The landlord had offered £400 for the delays and the impact of the delays. Taking into account of the landlord’s response overall, we consider that that was reasonable compensation and in line with our own guidance. We also consider that the landlord’s response satisfies our dispute resolution principles of to “be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right and learn from outcomes”. We therefore find reasonable redress for this complaint.

The landlord’s handling reports of noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property

  1. We investigated a previous complaint of the resident regarding noise from the property above in case reference 202122199. The landlord had concluded that the noise was not anti-social behaviour but general household noise. The landlord arranged to fit carpet in order to mitigate the noise. Following the fitting of the carpet, P reported that the noise had continued. On 11 January 2023, the resident reported that there was “excessive noise and banging”. The landlord opened a case. According to its records, it left a voicemail message on the resident’s phone and sent a text on 20 March 2023. It then wrote to the resident on 28 March 2023 asking her to make contact. It subsequently closed the case because it did not receive a response or hear further.
  2. When P chased a response on 13 October 2023, the landlord told him that it had contacted the resident as it that what it did “normally”. The resident had made her hours of work clear on occasions and that she did not have access to her phone during those hours. Moreover, the landlord had communicated with P in the past about the same issues. However, the resident would have received a text, voicemail message and email and it was open to her to make arrangements to return the messages or to have arranged for P to do so. We therefore do not find fault for the landlord closing the case as a) the landlord had reasonably decided the noise was household noise rather than ASB and b) this was in line with its policy which stated it would close a case if it did not receive further contact or reports from a resident.
  3. The next evidence of the resident raising the issue was when the landlord met with P at the property on 29 September 2023. At the meeting, P reported that he heard banging from upstairs. The landlord stated this was household noise. It reasonably explained to the resident that there would be a certain level of noise transference in the building. It was reasonable not to treat the issue as antisocial behaviour. However, given the impact on P, given his PTSD, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider investigating whether there were further sound mitigating measures it could take. It did, however, meet and discuss the matter with N which was reasonable. We cannot share the conversation the landlord had with N due to confidentiality. However, they discussed a potentially helpful long-term solution.
  4. The landlord reasonably contacted the resident again on 13 December 2023. Neither she nor P had made reports in the meantime. During the call, she reported that they heard N’s daughters playing upstairs. It was reasonable the landlord proactively monitored the situation. While P said the noise was still continuing, there were no specific examples, or diary sheets, or times of the day. This would have made it difficult for the landlord to address the noise reports or work out the nature of the noise. Again, it was reasonable that the landlord closed the case.
  5. P told us in September 2025 that he stopped making noise reports because he had “lost faith”. The landlord’s records indicated that he explained this to the landlord in January 2024. We sympathise with the resident and P not continuing to make reports. However, we appreciate the landlord was unable to act if it was not receiving reports. In the circumstances, we find no maladministration in relation to the resident’s complaint about noise.
  6. We recognise that the landlord may not be able to eliminate the noise transference altogether. However, given P told us he continued to experience noise, and he is diagnosed with PTSD, we will make a recommendation that the landlord carries out a noise transference test and investigates whether there are any further steps it can take to mitigate noise transference.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. There was a significant delay to the landlord’s Stage 2 response following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 29 January 2023. We note from the landlord’s internal notes that it wished to avoid escalation, after the resident had made her request. The landlord did not escalate the complaint until 16 October 2023, despite the resident chasing progress including on 16 February 2023 and 4 June 2023. This was inappropriate as not only was this outside the landlord’s own policy timescales, but it delayed resolution of the complaint and increased the resident’s frustration. The landlord did not explain its delay or apologise.
  2. The landlord’s Stage 2 response stated the matter had been resolved even though the resident had suffered further water ingress 3 days before the Stage 2 response. This was also unreasonable and caused the resident further frustration.
  3. The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint about noise in its complaint responses. This was unreasonable as it meant the landlord missed the opportunity to explain its approach.
  4. We find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, given its delays and incomplete responses.
  5. In December 2024, we carried out a special investigation of the landlord and its complaint handling where we made a number of recommendations and, in the circumstances, we will not be making any further recommendations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress offered which satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress from a neighbouring property.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration about the landlord’s handling of reports of noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property.
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following order:
    1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £150 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should refer the resident to its own insurers for any claims of damage to their personal possessions.
    2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should carry out a noise transference test and consider whether there are any further measures the landlord could take to reduce noise transference between the properties.
    3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should contact the resident and/or her partner and discuss whether she would like the landlord to record any household vulnerabilities.
    4. The landlord should consider any learning from the findings in this investigation including how it manages communication where there are difficult neighbour relationships and how it investigates persistent leaks.
  2. The landlord should feedback to the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.