Hyde Housing Association Limited (202342158)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house with her 3 children. She has anxiety and depression. The resident was also recovering from breast surgery during this complaint period.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of low water pressure.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of low water pressure.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of low water pressure

4. The landlord took some steps to resolve low water pressure at the time of the complaint. However, there were avoidable delays, and it has not demonstrated that it managed to provide a lasting resolution despite its compensation awards.

Handling of the complaint

5. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and it did not evidence learning between the complaint stages. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate for the stress and inconvenience this caused the resident.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The resident raised concerns with low water pressure since she moved into the property and has confirmed that the landlord replaced the boiler and fitted 6 new pumps. In the interests of fairness, and considering the availability of evidence, this investigation has focused on events from March 2023. This is the period considered by the landlord in its complaint responses.
7. The resident raised a further complaint in April 2024 including concerns about water pressure. This exhausted the complaint procedure in June 2024 and the landlord confirmed in August 2024 it would not raise a further complaint about this issue. Given the landlord has had opportunity to consider events up to then through its complaints process and we have sufficient evidence, we have extended our investigation to August 2024.
8. It can take more than one attempt to resolve intermittent water pressure faults as it can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset. In some cases, the landlord may need to attempt different repairs to resolve the issue. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, in this case it is unclear on what basis the landlord reasonably believed continuing to change pumps would provide a lasting resolution. There is no clear evidence that the landlord explored all possible options to effectively diagnose and resolve the issue.
9. The landlord acted fairly by recognising its responsibility for low water pressure in line with the tenancy agreement. The landlord has replaced the pump several times and carried out a repair to the water tank, but the problem remains ongoing. The repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. Other day to day repairs will be anytime within 20 working days of the resident’s report.
10. The resident reported low water pressure on 27 March 2023. The landlord ordered the wrong pump, placed a new order, and then fitted another incorrect pump. It did not install the correct pump until 19 June 2023. During this time, the resident had intermittent loss of hot and cold water to her bathroom and had to carry buckets of water upstairs to bathe herself and her children whilst recovering from cancer and breast surgery. This delay significantly exceeded the landlord’s repair timeframes, and it could have avoided the delay by ensuring it ordered the correct pump.
11. By the end of June 2023, the resident reported that the water pressure fault was ongoing. She chased an update in July 2023. The landlord attended on 20 July 2023 and found there was no fault at this time. It previously recorded a no-access appointment which reasonably explains the delay in attending in early July 2023. It is also reasonable that the landlord did not carry out further repairs as it was unable to identify a fault at its visit.
12. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that there were no reported issues with the water tank and did not explore this. As the water tank feeds the bathroom water, this was potentially linked to the water pressure issues it addressed elsewhere in its response and it is unclear why the landlord failed to investigate this further.
13. On 28 September 2023 the resident reported that the problem was ongoing. The landlord attended on 13 October 2023 and confirmed the pump was not working. It apologised in its subsequent stage 2 response for delays and that it had not resolved the issue.
14. However, the landlord then stated it would resolve the problem by replacing the faulty pump. Whilst this may have been a reasonable temporary solution, this indicates that the landlord had not learned from its stage 1 response and subsequent visits as it failed to show consideration for potential alternative resolutions.
15. After ordering the wrong pump initially, it replaced this on 15 November 2023. The landlord failed to maintain accurate records of the pump requirements when deciding that it needed to replace the pump which contributed to repeated errors and unreasonable delays.
16. The landlord conducted follow on repairs in November 2023 and replaced a shower pump in January 2024. It attended further low water pressure reports in February 2024 after an initial appointment was cancelled due to contractor illness. It visited on 27 February 2024 and found no issues at this time. It was again reasonable that the landlord would not raise additional works if no pressure problems were witnessed during its inspection.
17. The resident raised a further complaint about the ongoing water pressure issues in April 2024. The landlord responded in May 2024, advising that the pump was the issue, not the boiler. It confirmed it would not consider a replacement boiler due to its age but would inspect the pump for faults. On inspection in May 2024, the contractor again confirmed there were no issues and the pump was working brilliantly.
18. We recognise the difficulty the landlord had in making a further diagnosis over this period and understand that it cannot easily act when no evidence of a fault is present. However, although it noted the resident said the issues were ongoing and there was no fault with the pump, it refused to investigate further and fully investigate this element of her complaint at stage 2 (on 13 June 2024), stating it was resolved. This response did not take into consideration that the resident made a further water pressure report on 3 June 2024. It failed to use the opportunity to review its repairs history in a wider context and explore a long term resolution.
19. The landlord attended on 13 June 2024 and confirmed that the pump again needed changing. The resident reported this again on 31 July 2024. On 1 August 2024 an engineer noted the pump needed renewal and that there had already been 5 replacements. This should have again prompted consideration of alternative actions. The resident asked to raise a further complaint, giving the landlord opportunity to reflect on its actions to date and investigate other options. The landlord refused to raise this complaint as it had referenced the issue in its June 2024 response.
20. On 5 August 2024 the landlord replaced the pump yet again. The resident has confirmed this issue is still ongoing. On this replacement, an engineer stated the pump had burned out because of the thermostat on the cylinder. Another engineer attended and found this not to be the case. It is of concern that the landlord’s inspections have led to contrary opinions, yet it did not seek to explore the reasons for this further despite the resident’s repeated reports. The landlord obtained multiple reports that the pumps were in good working order in between faults but it failed to identify, and respond to, a trend in the repairs and show evidence it considered further options to provide a lasting resolution.
21. The landlord’s offer of £650 was proportionate to its failings at the time of the October 2023 final complaint response. However, it did not provide a lasting resolution at the time of that complaint, and multiple pump replacements continued to be necessary with missed opportunities to identify why this consistently recurred during early-mid 2024. We have ordered £200 additional compensation to reflect the adverse impact caused by the landlord’s failings and an inspection order to look for a lasting resolution.

22. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge at both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
23. The landlord took 26 working days to respond at stage 1 which was outside of its policy timescales. Whilst it did send a holding response, it did not explain the delay or meet its extension deadline. It failed to provide evidence that it communicated further delays to the resident.
24. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its stage 1 response. It agreed that it should have completed the repairs sooner. It subsequently offered a ‘stage 1 review’ which increased the compensation offer but did not fully address the ongoing repairs issues. The landlord should ensure it does not offer a compensation review when a complaint escalation would be more appropriate.
25. We have not investigated its handling of the second complaint. That complaint contains wider repair issues which are pending investigation with us and it is more appropriate for these to be assessed within the context of the separate matters that were part of that complaint.
26. The landlord has acknowledged its failures with the handling of the original 2023 complaint and offered £150 compensation. This is within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend for a failing that has adverse impact on a resident so is proportionate to put right the time and trouble that the delays caused the resident. On this basis, we make a finding of reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the complaint.

Learning

Repairs

27. Intermittent faults can be challenging to diagnose and manage, but the landlord should have been able to take a holistic view of the problem. Rather than continuing with like for like replacements, the landlord should have reviewed the broader context for the repairs and considered alternative solutions. This approach would have demonstrated a commitment to resolving the issue rather than a responsive approach. A more strategic assessment could have reduced disruption to the resident and improved service delivery.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord did not hold clear information for the pump installed at the property which led to repeated ordering of incorrect replacement parts. This failure contributed to delays in resolving the resident’s water pressure issues. Accurate and accessible asset data is essential to ensure timely and appropriate repairs. In contrast, the landlord maintained good records of repair visits with images that helped track the chronology of action taken. The landlord should review its data management practices to ensure it captures and retains all relevant information including property specifications to support effective service delivery and complaint resolution.

Communication

29. The landlord maintained records confirming that phone calls took place with the resident, but it did not retain the content of those calls. This gap limited its ability to evidence what was discussed, agreed or advised during key stages of the repair process. Effective complaint handling and service delivery rely on clear, traceable communication. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate records of all resident interactions including the substance of phone calls to support transparency, accountability and continuity of service.