Hyde Housing Association Limited (202338893)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338893

Hyde Housing Association Limited

29 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about service charges.
2. Enquiries about moving into another property.
3. Reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) on the roof garden.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared owner and has an underlease with his landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat overlooking the roof garden of the block. The landlord is a tenant of the head landlord (the freeholder). The headlease states the freeholder would keep in repair and decorative condition:
1. The roof foundations and structural parts of the block.
2. The exterior of the block.
3. The common parts and all fixtures and fittings in these parts.
4. Any other part of the block which is not within a lettable property by the landlord.
On 16 June 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord. The resident told the landlord he was experiencing issues with noise coming from children playing on the roof garden after 9pm. The resident said it was too hot to close the windows and doors. The resident said he had not complained to the landlord in the previous 9 years he had been living there. The landlord responded on 30 June 2022 and said it had logged the resident’s reports under an ASB case reference. The landlord completed a joint visit with the police to the block and roof garden on 6 July 2022.
On 5 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord’s staff member who had been dealing with his June 2022 ASB report. The resident acknowledged that action taken by the landlord in the summer of 2022 was successful. The resident said he was concerned and pre-empted that ASB would resume during the Easter period. The landlord’s said it would forward the resident’s concerns to the ASB team in his local area. The landlord told the resident on 3 April 2023 that he could contact its ASB team directly.
On 6 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord’s CEO. The resident said:
1. There were ongoing issues with the roof garden as it was being treated as a “playground and football pitch for up to 12 hours a day”. The resident said this included “unacceptable” levels of noise. Also, he was being ignored by the landlord’s ASB team.
2. He felt he was paying for a service charge (maintenance of the roof garden), but this was not happening. He said he “regretted” not choosing a different property.
3. He wanted to relocate. He believed the landlord should facilitate a transfer to another property of equal share and value.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 8 June 2023 and said it aimed to reply by 20 June 2023. On 10 June 2023 the resident added to his complaint that:
1. After he reported ASB in 2022, the landlord arranged for a police officer visit which prevented issues for around 6 months. When he then reported further ASB he did not receive a response from the landlord. He said:
  1. There should have been a “no ball games” sign.
  2. Access to the roof garden should be closed permanently.
  3. It was too hot so closing the windows was not an option.
  4. There were no bins on the roof garden by design.
2. He believed he should be moved to another property by a transfer, and there was no alternative.
3. He was paying the same level of service charge as his friend who has a 2-floor duplex in a different development. He felt his service charge was too high.
On 16 June 2023 the landlord contacted the freeholder about the resident’s concerns and told them it was their responsibility to maintain the roof garden, not the landlord’s. On 20 June 2023 the landlord told the resident it was extending the complaint deadline to 5 July 2023. On 26 June 2023 the resident sent the landlord videos of what he said was ASB activity on the roof garden. The resident also said he had spent money on fans and noise cancelling headphones. On 7 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and said:
1. The local council provided planning permission for the roof garden as it met their requirements.
2. It had not supervised the area in the past.
3. It had seen the videos the resident sent but it did not believe children playing on the roof garden would be considered to be ASB by its ASB team.
4. It could not close the roof garden as it was a key fire exit route.
5. Moving into a property with a roof garden should have been a consideration for the resident, prior to moving.
6. Residents were expected to behave in line with their tenancy agreement and if he continued to experience ASB for him to report it. It provided the ASB team’s contact details.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 12 July 2023. The landlord said
1. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint process taking longer than it would expect.
2. The freeholder and its managing agent were responsible for all estate services. The roof garden fell under the freeholder’s responsibility.
3. It had a team that could help the resident arrange a property sale or purchase. It had an information pack online with guides.
4. It could not arrange a property swap the way the resident wanted.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 15 July 2023 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord’s CEO replied to the resident on 17 July 2023 saying it would not legally be able to execute the transfer of properties in the way he wanted. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 2 August 2023 and said it would respond by 21 August 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 August 2023. The landlord said:
1. The freeholder was disputing their responsibility to repair. It had received confirmation from them that they would maintain the roof garden twice per year. If the resident remained dissatisfied about the service charge, it directed him to contact the freeholder and it provided a link.
2. It could have been clearer in its stage 1 complaint response about moving properties. It provided a link to an information guide on how to sell his property. It confirmed it had contacted the resident on 14 July 2023 about the options available to him regarding a move. It provided a direct contact for the resident.
3. It awarded £150, comprised of:
  1. £100 for the delays in the internal complaints procedure.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by it not being clear about the resident’s enquiries about moving.
On 3 January 2024 the resident told the landlord that other social housing providers offered the type of property transfer he was looking for under a shared ownership lease. On 31 January 2024 the resident contacted us as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident wanted us to investigate his concerns and for the landlord to:
1. Transfer him to another property within its portfolio, of equal value to his 25% shared ownership.
2. Close the roof garden permanently.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We have reviewed the resident’s complaint of 6 June 2023, the concerns that exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, and those he subsequently referred to us.
We are unable to assess the actions of the freeholder and the managing agent arm of its business. They are not members of the Scheme. We can only assess the actions of a member of the Scheme, in this case, the landlord who the resident has a direct relationship with.
We cannot comment on complaints concerning the level of a service charge. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. However, the resident’s complaint included that he was paying for the roof garden to be maintained via service charges and believed he was not receiving this service. We can consider the landlord’s communication about this.
Our investigation will only consider events that took place from 6 June 2022 until the resident exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This was 12 months before the resident’s formal complaint on 6 June 2023. This is because the landlord needs a reasonable opportunity to consider issues, and evidence is available for it to reach an informed conclusion. Events after 18 August 2023 will not be assessed unless the landlord committed to any actions within its internal complaints procedure.
Our role is not to establish whether ASB took place or not. Our role is to assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its policies and obligations.

Service charges

We will consider whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and our Remedies Guidance. The principles are:
1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
Additionally, consideration is given to the distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by service failures in our Remedies Guidance. The Remedies Guidance also considers the length of time the resident experienced any detriment.
The provisions of the resident’s underlease set out that he is required to pay service charges. The resident told the landlord on 6 June 2023 that he was dissatisfied he was paying towards a service charge for the maintenance of the roof garden but did not believe this service was being provided. On 7 July 2023 the landlord told the resident that the maintenance of the roof garden was the freeholder’s responsibility. This was an appropriate response.
The landlord reiterated that it was not responsible for the maintenance of the roof garden in its stage 1 complaint response. However, the resident added on 27 July 2023 that he remained dissatisfied as the landlord had not provided the managing agent’s contact details. The evidence shows the landlord provided a contact link for the freeholder in its stage 2 complaint response. It also advised the resident that previously the freeholder had been disputing its responsibilities for the roof garden with the landlord. If the resident was dissatisfied about the freeholder’s actions, he could contact the freeholder directly about this. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
Ultimately, the landlord is not responsible for the maintenance of the roof garden charged via service charges. However, the landlord considered the resident’s concerns and provided its position on the matter. We can see on 16 and 21 June 2023, as well as 2 and 21 August 2023 the landlord chased the freeholder and its managing agent team. This was for confirmation about repair responsibilities and telling them about the resident’s concerns about lack of maintenance. This showed the landlord was resolution focused and it clearly communicated to the resident that the freeholder had accepted responsibility in its final response.
Overall, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about service charges.

Enquiries about moving into another property

The provisions of the resident’s underlease says it can be assigned. The lease also states the resident is to pay all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord or the head landlord.
The resident told the landlord that due to his experience at the property, he wanted to be transferred to another shared ownership property (also with the landlord). The resident specified this should be of equal share and value. There is no evidence to support that the landlord said it would guarantee this type of transfer was a possibility.
The evidence shows the landlord told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that it would not be able to facilitate this type of transfer. However, it offered to market the property for sale and emailed him details on how to do this. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it reiterated this but accepted it could have communicated the options to move quicker and be clearer to the resident. The landlord had identified this service failing and offered £50 for distress and inconvenience caused and provided the resident with a direct contact for help with resale enquiries. Our Remedies Guidance suggests offers of £50 for single service failings which caused distress and inconvenience. Therefore, the landlord’s offer was in line with our Remedies Guidance.
While we acknowledge the resident feels other social housing providers offer the type of direct shared ownership property transfer he is looking for, the landlord is not obliged to do so.
Given the above, the landlord had appropriately explained to the resident it would not facilitate the type of transfer he wanted. The landlord identified its errors with its communication, apologised, and offered proportionate compensation. These were all reasonable steps by it.
Therefore, we make a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling about the resident’s enquiries about moving into another property. This finding is based on the financial remedy that was offered being paid to to the resident, if it has not already done so.

Reports of ASB on the roof garden

The landlord’s ASB Policy Statement says it would not consider noise from children when they are playing to be ASB.
The landlord’s ASB procedure says:
1. Noise nuisance is considered ASB.
2. If an ASB case is created, the ASB officer will agree initial actions with the person making the report.
3. When considering what action to take to tackle ASB, the case officer must consider what is reasonable, proportionate, and appropriate and consider other agencies’ resources and actions available.
4. The case officer will ensure, where relevant, support options are considered for the person reporting the ASB. This includes support from its teams.
5. The ASB officer will encourage and signpost the person making the report to report their concerns to any other appropriate relevant agencies. This includes the local council’s noise team.
6. The ASB officer will take all reasonable steps to gather evidence in the quickest time possible. This could include noise monitors.
The evidence we have received of the landlord’s actions from June 2022 until August 2023 regarding reports of ASB was limited.
We can see that in June 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that the roof garden was being used by children for ball games after 9pm. The resident said this was disruptive and it was too hot to close the windows. The landlord said it had logged this as ASB. The landlord also said it would arrange a joint visit with the police. This was actioned on 6 July 2022. This action was appropriate and in line with its ASB procedure.
The evidence shows the resident said he was satisfied with the landlord’s actions as it had resolved the issue for the time being. There was nearly an 8-month gap until the resident expressed concerns to the landlord about potential ASB reoccurring. The resident had contacted a staff member that no longer worked in his local area. Although the staff member said he had forwarded this to the relevant team, the resident did not receive a response. This was unreasonable and the resident expended time and trouble by chasing the landlord on 3 April 2023.
At that stage, the resident was told by the previous staff member to report any ASB to a main email address for the ASB team. There is no evidence that shows the resident did so. This was until the resident wrote to the landlord’s CEO on 6 June 2023.
Following this, the resident told the landlord on 10 June 2023 there should be a sign that said no ball games. He also said that the roof garden should have limited access or be closed completely. He then added on 23 June 2023 evidence of ASB. He said he had spent money on fans and noise cancelling headphones due to the noise.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns on 7 July 2023. It said children playing games would not constitute ASB. The landlord told the resident that there was no agreement in place to limit use of the roof garden, but residents were expected to behave in line with their tenancy agreements. It advised the resident he could report incidents to its ASB team or its team that patrols the estate. The landlord explained that planning permission was provided by the local council, and the roof garden could not be closed due to it being a fire exit route.
While the landlord provided a response, it contrasted with action it had taken previously in 2022. Despite the landlord acknowledging it had received the evidence provided by the resident, it did not clarify the status of the ASB case. This was not reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord did not outline its position on what steps it would or would not take, in line with its ASB Procedures. Although the resident said he had bought noise cancelling headphones, there is no evidence the landlord considered any support referrals, as outlined in its ASB Procedure. There is also no evidence it advised he could monitor the noise using any applications or devices. Its communication regarding ASB was poor and its lack of support inappropriate.
The landlord also failed to provide a response to the resident’s concerns about ASB in its stage 1 or stage 2 complaint responses. We have elaborated on it not incorporating this in its complaint response to the resident about ASB in our complaint handling assessment below.
Overall, the landlord failed to acknowledge the detriment reportedly caused to the resident. It is clear the resident was distressed and experienced inconvenience due to the landlord’s inactions from 6 June 2023 until 18 August 2023. The landlord’s actions were inconsistent with its ASB procedures. Therefore, we have made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB on the roof garden.
Orders to put things right have been made. This includes compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience experienced, which was in excess of 2 months, and its poor communication. This award is in line with our Remedies Guidance for when the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s complaints policy, updated in March 2023, stated it would:
1. Acknowledge complaints at stage 1 in 5 working days.
2. Respond to complaints at stage 1 in 10 working days, although extensions could be agreed.
3. Respond to complaints at stage 2 in 20 working days after receipt of a complaint escalation.
4. Fully respond to each point raised by the resident.
After the resident’s email to the landlord’s CEO in June 2023, a complaint was raised and acknowledged by the landlord within 2 working days. This was appropriate.
The stage 1 complaint response deadline was 20 June 2023. The evidence shows on 20 June 2023 the landlord extended the complaint deadline until 5 July 2023 and explained it needed more time to confirm aspects of its response. While this was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy, it failed to adhere to the extended timescale. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued 5 working days after the revised deadline. This was inappropriate and there is no evidence the resident was kept informed that there would be further delay.
The evidence shows the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 15 July 2023. There is no evidence the landlord had not received the resident’s escalation email at that stage. However, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 August 2023, 20 working days later. This was unreasonable and delayed the resident’s complaint journey.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent within 20 working days of it acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. By the landlord’s final response, it had identified there had been delays during its internal complaints procedure. It awarded £100 for this. While the landlord had made an offer to put things right, it had not identified all of its failings.
When the resident emailed the landlord about ASB in 2022, he expressed dissatisfaction and said he had not complained to it before. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said that it defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction. There is no evidence that this correspondence from the resident was being treated as a complaint by the landlord. There is also no evidence it contacted the resident to clarify if he was complaining. This was inappropriate in the circumstances.
Additionally, during the internal complaints procedure the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns of ASB on the roof garden. This was despite the landlord defining it as a complaint point in its stage 2 complaint acknowledgement. By the landlord omitting a response to the resident’s complaint of ASB, it demonstrated it had not appropriately followed its complaint policy. As the ASB point was not responded to, the landlord missed the opportunity to identify its shortcomings and take action to put things right.
As such, the landlord’s offer of £100 was not proportionate to all the events. We would have found maladministration but for the steps the landlord did take and the redress offered. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay £75 additional compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident due to the above complaint handling failures. This means a total of £175 in compensation is to be paid to the resident.
We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to establish whether he is dissatisfied with its handling of ASB issues after 18 August 2023.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress, which resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s enquiries about moving into another property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in:
1. The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of ASB on the roof garden.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and its complaint handling, as identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £325, made up of:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused due to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused due to its complaint handling failings. If any of the £100 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response has been paid, this can be deducted from this total.
3. Contact the resident to find out if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB from August 2023 onwards. If the resident wants to pursue his complaint, the landlord is to log the complaint under its internal complaints procedure.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us.

Recommendation

The landlord is also recommended to re-offer the £50 it awarded in its stage 2 complaint response for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s enquiries about moving into another property. This recommendation is based on the £50 not being paid previously.