Hyde Housing Association Limited (202337556)

Decision
Case ID	202337556
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	16 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, second floor flat with her 2 children. The resident has an authorised representative dealing with her complaint. For ease, we will refer to the resident and her representative as the resident. The resident raised issues with a lack of heating and hot water when she moved in.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to issues with the heating and hot water at the property.
2. complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to issues with heating and hot water in the property.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Issues with the heating and hot water

We found that the landlord:
1. Failed to keep accurate records of the resident’s service requests, its contractor’s repair appointments or outcomes. It did not acknowledge this in its responses.
2. Delayed in employing a specialist contractor for several months, passing responsibility for the repair between itself and the utility provider. This caused unnecessary delays and confusion for the resident.
3. Did not provide proportionate compensation for the failings in the substantive issue to the resident until after the internal complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this Service.

Complaint handling

We found that the landlord:
1. Did not put things right for the resident for its complaint handling failures without input from this Service.
2. Was confusing in its stage 2 response because substantial compensation was offered, but the complaint was not upheld. By not upholding the complaint, it has not meaningfully accepted responsibility for its failings.

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 13 November 2025
2	Compensation order If it has not already done so, the landlord must pay the resident £1,400 already offered to the resident made up as follows: £1150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in response to issues with the heating and hot water. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of all payments by the due date.	13 November 2025
3	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident setting out what the landlord has learnt from the failures identified in the report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	13 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 December 2023	The resident raised a complaint about not having heating or hot water at her property since she moved in 2 weeks previously. She said the landlord had arranged a contractor to attend, who could not resolve the issue and advised her to contact her utility company. She said she was concerned about the contractor’s capability. She said to resolve her complaint she wanted the landlord to fix the issue, and to provide compensation and an updated Electrical Performance Certificate (EPC).
5 January 2024	The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said: since the beginning of the tenancy there had been no heating at the property. Her son had been unwell, and she had been unable to stay at her home because of the low temperature. when she chased the issue with the landlord, it had not logged her original complaint, and it had failed to respond to her callback request. the landlord’s contractor had attended on 2 occasions but not put the issue right. It had failed to attend an appointment, arrived on one occasion with no appointment and then turned up late to another. She said she had spent a lot of time on the telephone to the contractor, and their communication was poor. to resolve the complaint, she wanted compensation and for the landlord to resolve the issue.
22 January 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said its contractors had investigated and found the issue was the utility company’s responsibility. It had contacted the provider, who refused to engage with the landlord as a third party. As a result, the landlord said it could not take further action or escalate the complaint. It advised the resident to contact the utility provider directly. It offered her £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience, broken down into: £200 for delays in service delivery. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused. £50 complaint handling failure. £50 for customer effort.
6 February 2024	The resident escalated her complaint.
19 April 2024	After contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord acknowledged the escalation. The landlord called the resident who said she had sought advice from the utility company but continued to experience heating and hot water issues.
17 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it had not failed in the service it provided. It said: it had tried to arrange a joint appointment with the utility provider, who refused to attend. it had arranged for a different contractor to attend on 3 May 2024. They had diagnosed the problem and ordered the required parts. It would be able to repair the issue by 31 May 2024. It agreed it should have done this more quickly. it provided a single point of contact. it agreed it failed to respond to the resident’s initial contact. It said it also refused to escalate the complaint, which was wrong. It offered an increased compensation amount of £700 broken down into:  £250 for complaint handling failures.  £50 for customer effort.  £200 for the delays completing your repairs.  £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
16 October 2024	The landlord offered the resident an additional compensation payment towards electrical usage and the purchase of any heaters. This takes the total compensation offered to £1,400.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked this Service to investigate because she said having limited access to hot water and heating had caused inconvenience, worsened her son’s eczema and caused financial issues. She said the landlord had fixed the heating, she would like an increased amount of compensation.

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 issues with heating and hot water in the property.

Finding

Service failure

It is reasonable to conclude from the resident’s complaints that repair appointments had taken place in December 2023. However, there is no evidence of the initial service request, responses or inspection notes within the landlord’s records before 2024. This has prevented us from being able to assess the reasonability of the landlord’s actions.
It is also reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s contractors attended on 4 occasions between December 2023 and 19 January 2024 to try to repair the heating. It was positive that the landlord had inspected to try to complete the repair. However, the landlord was unable to put the issue right within the 24 hours outlined in its repairs policy for loss of heating, or the 20 working days for routine repairs.
The landlord sent the resident a copy of the valid EPC on 4 January 2024. This was reasonable.
It offered the resident temporary heaters on 18 January 2024, over 3 weeks after she had raised the service request and only after she had raised a complaint. This was unreasonable. If the landlord could not remedy the issue, it would have been appropriate to have considered temporary measures such as providing heaters or alternative accommodation, to reduce the impact on the resident in the interim.
The landlord’s contractor said that the fault lay with the utility provider. It is reasonable for a landlord to reply upon the advice of an appropriately qualified contractor when making repair decisions. The evidence shows that the landlord had tried to cooperate with the utility company to repair the boiler. This was reasonable.
In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord said there was nothing more it could do. It closed the complaint and said the resident could not escalate it. This was not reasonable. Even if the technical fault lay with the utility provider, the resident’s occupancy agreement states that the landlord would make sure all fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity and water heating are kept repaired and in working order. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have agreed to commit to continue trying to resolve the issue or reduce the impact at this stage.
The landlord did acknowledge failings around delays in responding to the issue and identifying responsibility for the repair. It also offered the resident compensation. This was in keeping with our dispute resolution principle to ‘put things right’.
The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the contractor’s appointment record, which was a record keeping oversight. It also failed to meaningfully engage with this aspect of the resident’s complaint in its response. This was unreasonable.
A week after the stage 1 complaint response the landlord asked its contractor to attend to undertake further works and bleed the radiators after being informed by the utility company that the problem was not their responsibility. The level of disruption for the resident since she first reported the repairs was significant and beyond the routine 20 days for a repair completion outlined in the repairs policy.
The changing of position on who was responsible also led to ongoing distress and frustration for the resident. In the absence of cooperation from the utility provider, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether a specialist contractor was required to make a final and lasting repair to put things right for the resident at this stage.
On 1 February 2024 the landlord’s contractor undertook repairs and left the boiler working. This was reasonable. However, the landlord’s monitoring of the repair was poor, and the records show it was unclear on whether the issue was resolved until 22 February 2024. Without effective monitoring of repairs, a landlord can not know whether it has put an issue right for a resident, which can cause delays and lead to communication issues. This was unreasonable.
Between March and April 2024, the landlord’s communication with the resident was sporadic. This Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident about who was responsible for the boiler and respond about her dissatisfaction with the compensation offered. That we had to encourage the landlord to respond was unreasonable and caused the resident time and trouble chasing a response.
On 17 April 2024 the resident reported that the hot water and heating was inconsistent. The landlord raised a new inspection and a contractor attended within 2 days. It could not identify the problem and said it would try again to liaise with the utility provider. The landlord was proactive in keeping the resident informed at this stage and acted appropriately to the new service request.
On 29 April 2024, because the utility provider refused to work collaboratively, the landlord hired a specialist energy-based contractor. They attended within 4 working days, diagnosed the issue, completed a temporary repair and ordered a new part. It was reasonable that the landlord took a new, successful approach to address the issue, although it would have spared the resident distress and inconvenience had it done this sooner.
In the stage 2 response the landlord made reasonable attempts at learning from its failings and putting things right
However, there was then a further delay in finalising the repair, during which time the resident reported intermittent heating and hot water. The landlord put the issue right on 31 July 2024, 3 months after the resident had re-raised it, which was outside its repair timescales. The records show that between the stage 2 response and the repair completion the resident had to continue chasing the landlord. These were failings.
In recognition of the further delays and the cost of temporary heaters, the landlord offered the resident an increase in compensation. The compensation was in line with the amounts set out in our Remedies Guidance. Whilst the landlord has paid additional sums of compensation to the resident, these cannot be considered as reasonable redress. This is because the compensation was offered after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this Service.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 13 working days after she raised it and only after the resident chased it for a response. This was outside the 5 working days outlined in the Complaints Handling Code (the Code), which was a failing.
In the complaint acknowledgement the landlord did not provide a response timescale. Though not a failing per the Code, it would have managed the resident’s expectations had it given her a date by which it would respond.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint before the stage 1 was due. The landlord emailed the resident within 24 hours advising that it would have to close the stage 1 to escalate the complaint. It offered the resident compensation. This response likely caused confusion about the complaints process, because it is unclear whether the landlord’s offer was an informal stage 1 complaint response, or how the resident’s complaint would progress. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have advised her the date by which she would receive a stage 1 complaint response and how to escalate afterwards.
The landlord provided its formal stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement which was reasonable. However it refused to escalate her complaint on request. Per the Code, landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure unless it has valid reasons to do so. The landlord acted unreasonably in refusing to escalate the resident’s complaint.
In March and April 2024 this Service contacted the landlord asking it to provide the resident with an update. The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement letter 52 working days after the escalation request, 47 days outside the timescale in the Code. This delay was inappropriate.
The landlord requested an extension before the stage 2 complaint response was due. It explained the need for the delay and agreed to a final response date of 3 May 2024, which was reasonable. However, it did not provide a response until 17 May 2024, which was unreasonable and further delayed the resident seeking resolution from this Service.
In the stage 2 response the landlord made reasonable attempts to put things right for the resident.
The Code says that landlords must provide residents with information on their right to access the Ombudsman service and how the individual can engage with us about their complaint. The landlord did not mention this Service in the stage 2 response. This was an oversight. However, there was no detriment to the resident, as she was already in contact with the Ombudsman.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint at stage 2 as it said it had not failed in the service it had provided. However, the landlord offered the resident an increased amount of compensation in recognition of “further service failures”. This language is contradictory, and it is unclear why the landlord offered this amount but did not uphold the complaint. While the landlord attempted to put things right for the resident, this was a confusing approach to complaint handling.
Although the landlords offer of compensation was proportionate, its final response was confusing, and it did not put the issue right on its own initiative, without input from this Service. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord has not provided evidence of service requests or details of its communication with the resident including when appointments were arranged with contractors or clear outcomes. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident, particularly about the contractor’s appointments and the responsibility for the repair, was unclear. The resident had to contact this Service to encourage the landlord to respond. Once the stage 2 complaint was acknowledged, the landlord’s communication improved.