Hyde Housing Association Limited (202419971)

Background

1. The resident lives in a second floor flat with lift access and a communal door entry system. They are a wheelchair user. On 16 January 2024 they reported that the door entry system was not working. On 30 January 2024 as the issue remained unresolved and they had not received any repair updates, the resident submitted a complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs to the communal door entry system.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door entry system.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the communal door entry system.

4. The landlord completed the repair outside of its policy timeframes. It did not address the impact of the faulty door entry system on the resident or consider their vulnerabilities.

Complaint handling.

5. The landlord issued both its complaint responses late. Its stage 2 response was significantly outside of its policy timeframes. It did not address all the issues raised in the resident’s complaint.

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.

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’s lease says the landlord is responsible for repairing common parts. The landlord’s repairs procedure says emergency repairs will be attended within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours. Any other repairs will be attended within 20 working days.
7. The resident first reported that the communal door entry system was not working on 16 January 2024. The repair was completed on 18 March 2024, after 44 working days, which was outside of the landlord’s policy timeframe.
8. The landlord knew the resident is a wheelchair user and receives regular carer visits. On 30 January 2024 the resident told the landlord that the faulty door entry system was causing extreme issues because people were unable to access the building. They explained they could not open the door manually and this was affecting their care visits and deliveries. The landlord did not acknowledge the impact on the resident or consider whether they were more adversely affected due to their vulnerabilities. It did not consider  interim measures, such as whether a member of staff could let people in at set times, to mitigate the impact. Nor did it consider whether the repair could be prioritised, given the resident’s individual circumstances.
9. The landlord said its specialist contractor had attempted to contact the resident about the repair on 12 March 2024. The resident disputed this and said that despite contacting the landlord several times since 16 January 2024, the contractor had not attended or contacted them. Whilst there are different accounts of what happened here, there is no evidence that the landlord followed up on the repair before March 2024, which was a significant delay.
10. The landlord acknowledged there had been confusion over whether the issue affected the whole block or just the resident’s property. It also accepted that the resident had made contact about the repair, but had not received a timely response. Although the landlord recognised some of its shortcomings, it did not offer compensation for the issues it identified. It only offered compensation for its complaint handling. It did not acknowledge the impact of delays on the resident or offer any reassurances about improving the standard of its future communication.
11. On 19 March 2024, the resident reiterated that they had been forced to go downstairs and manually open the communal door, to let in carers and receive essential deliveries, including medication. They said this was very difficult and inconvenient, particularly as they were also recovering from surgery. The resident explained again that they had gone to a lot of time and trouble to chase the repair. It is clear that delays and poor communication from the landlord caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. The landlord missed an opportunity to apologise to the resident or demonstrate that it had learnt from its failings.
12. Based on the delays in completing the repair, the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the impact on the resident, and the standard of its communication, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the door entry system repair.
13. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and to pay the resident £300 in compensation. This is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays, as well as the time and effort the resident spent pursuing the repair.

14. The landlord’s complaints policy said it aimed to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days.
15. The landlord issued its stage 1 response after 35 working days, which is outside of its policy timescales. It did not log the original complaint made on 30 January 2024 and did  not address all of the points the resident raised. The landlord did acknowledge some complaint handling failings and offered compensation of £50.
16. The landlord did not escalate the complaint when the resident asked it to on 19 March 2024 and again on 27 June 2024. It later said the resident escalated their complaint in September 2024, which was incorrect.
17. The landlord issued its stage 2 response after 155 working days, which is significantly outside of its policy timescales. It did not acknowledge this delay.
18. Our Complaint Handling Code says complaint responses must address each point raised in the complaint and clearly explain the landlord’s position on those issues. The landlord did not address all of the points raised and also referred to repairs which did not form part of the complaint. It did not respond to the resident’s concerns about communication, queries about repair delays or their reports of post being thrown away.
19. Due to the extensive delays and incomplete responses, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
20. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £150 in compensation. The landlord may deduct the £50 offered at stage 1 if it has already paid this.
21. On 1 April 2026, the resident told us they remain unhappy that the landlord did not address all the points raised in their complaint. We have therefore ordered that the landlord contact the resident to discuss the outstanding issues.

Learning

22. The landlord did not demonstrate effective learning from the issues raised. It had clear information about the resident’s vulnerabilities, but did not adjust its approach or consider any steps it could take to reduce the impact while the repair was outstanding.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord’s records were incomplete. There were gaps in repair logs and evidence that complaints were not logged or responded to on time. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping systems.

Communication

24. The landlord’s communication could be improved. In this case, the resident may not have needed our intervention if the landlord had kept them informed about the repair and responded promptly and fully to their complaint.