Hyde Housing Association Limited (202422113)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422113

Hyde Housing Association Limited

5 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
This report has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, end of terrace house that the landlord, which is a housing association, owns and manages. The landlord let the property to her under an assured tenancy agreement in March 2009.
The resident reported a number of repairs sometime in January 2023. These related to her upstairs toilet, bath tub, bathroom tiles, thermostat and front door. On 24 October 2023 she complained to the landlord that the repairs were still outstanding.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 October 2023 and issued its stage 1 response on 14 November 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delay in carrying out the repairs. It said it had arranged to complete them on 21, 22 and 28 November 2023. It also offered the resident £400 compensation in recognition of the delays, distress and inconvenience caused.
On 16 January 2024 the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement. It is unclear on which date she had escalated her complaint. Most of the repairs remained outstanding. She added that, although an operative had repaired her front door, it needed to be replaced.
The landlord sent the resident its final response on 25 January 2024. It upheld her complaint because, although it was unable to gain access to the property on 22 and 28 November, it had failed to arrange any further appointments. It also:
1. accepted it had not given her any reassurances on when it would complete the repairs.
2. confirmed it had made an appointment for 6 February 2024 to complete the works in her bathroom.
3. apologised for the added delays and inconvenience caused and offered her a further £200 compensation in recognition of this.
The resident asked the Ombudsman on 6 September 2024 to investigate her complaint. She stated that after 2 years the landlord had still not replaced her front door. She said it was “bowed” and continuously jammed shut. She added that the landlord had missed visits, and its communication and workmanship were poor. She said she wanted a new front door and to be compensated for the “stress” the landlord’s lack of action had caused her.

Assessment and findings

The exact date is unclear but, according to the landlord’s records, the resident reported in January 2023 that:
1. her upstairs toilet made a “rumbling noise” and vibrated.
2. the enamel on her bath was “chipped and sharp”.
3. when operatives had installed a new bath they had broken the tiles on the bathroom wall.
4. her thermostat was broken and needed to be replaced.
5. her door would sometimes jam shut and there were gaps around it.
Despite the resident having put the landlord on notice of those repairs, there is no indication it took any action. There is no evidence it had made any contact with her about the repairs before she raised her stage 1 complaint on 24 October 2023. This was around8 months later.
It should not have been necessary for the resident to complain to prompt the landlord to progress the outstanding repairs. This caused her unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience. The excessive delay in progressing the repairs was also a significant departure from its repairs policy. This commits it to completing routine repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord has given no explanation of why it had not progressed the repairs after the resident reported them. Furthermore, it has not given a reason why it had to raise them again. There is no evidence of effective repair monitoring by the landlord to ensure it was providing a service that was in line with its repairs policy.
Following the resident’s complaint, it took the landlord a further:
1. 72 working days to replace the upstairs toilet and fix the broken bathroom tiles.
2. 84 working days to replace the bath tub.
3. 162 working days to replace the broken thermostat.
4. 20 working days to attend to the front door.
Landlords must take reasonable steps to ensure they contact residents to provide updates and inform them of any cancellations or delays to appointments. There are no records to show it was communicating with the resident about the delays, or that the landlord was taking adequate steps to chase up its contractors. This demonstrates a failure by the landlord to take appropriate steps to comply with its repair obligations.
The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it would attend the property on 21, 22 and 28 November 2023 to complete the outstanding repairs. The records show it had attended on 21 November 2023 to repair the front door. However, although it attempted to carry out the remaining repairs on 22 and 28 November 2023, it was unable to gain access.
The resident is obliged under the terms of the tenancy agreement to provide access to the landlord and its contractors to investigate and complete repairs. We accept there was some disagreement between the resident and landlord over why the appointments did no go ahead. However, it is evident the landlord’s difficulty in gaining access to the property impacted its ability to complete the repairs and contributed to the delay.
However, the landlord did not dispute in its stage 2 response that it failed to make any efforts to rearrange the appointments. The ongoing delays resulted in the resident experiencing the unnecessary inconvenience of having to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to give the resident any reassurances as to when the repairs would be carried out.
Although it completed the bathroom repairs on 6 February 2024, as advised in its stage 2 response, it did not replace the thermostat until 14 June 2024. The internal records indicate a lack of understanding between staff over who was responsible for undertaking the work. This led to the repair initially being passed to the incorrect team, which added to the ongoing delay. This was a further failing. The landlord ought to ensure the relevant staff are adequately trained to raise repairs with the appropriate teams or contractors.
On 22 November 2023, the resident called the landlord regarding the front door repair on 21 November 2023. She stated that, although the operative had fixed the door, they had mentioned that it may need to be replaced as it was bowing. Although we do not dispute what the resident said, we have not seen any evidence corroborating the operative’s advice. The operative’s comments in the repair log state that they “fixed the front door”, “everything is working “and “it shuts fine”.
In an internal record from 22 November 2023, the landlord made a request for the front door to be investigated to ascertain what the operative was reported to have said. This would have been appropriate in the circumstances. However, there is no record that it followed up on this, or that it carried out a survey of the door to ascertain whether it would need to be replaced. This was a failing.
We note that the resident reported on 19 July 2024 that her front door would not open or close, and that the handles on the inside and outside were loose. The landlord raised this as an emergency repair and attended on the same day, which was appropriate. The operatives secured the door and ordered new handles, which were fitted on 6 August 2024.
The resident informed us on 26 August 2025 that the landlord had recently carried out a survey of the door and had recommended a replacement. She added that it took measurements but had not yet progressed the repair. We will order that it writes to her with a date on which it will replace the door. If it is waiting for a new door to be delivered, it must provide a provisional date for the works. It must update the resident if there are likely to be any further delays.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. We apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
Depending on the level of impact on the resident, the landlord’s compensation policy awards discretion payments of between:
1. £100 and £500 for delays.
2. £100 and £500 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £50 for time and trouble.
In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for and acknowledged the delays in completing repairs, its poor communication and the impact this had on the resident. It offered her a total of £600 in recognition of its failings. Taking the mitigating factors into account, this was in line with its compensation and what the Ombudsman would offer in similar circumstances. Therefore, we will not order the landlord to pay any further redress.
However, it has not provided any details of how it had learnt from the complaint, or of any measures it would take to avoid similar failings in future. For this reason, we have made a finding of service failure and will order the landlord to review its repair handing in this case.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2 stage formal complaints process. This states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord must clearly explain the reason for any delay to the resident. It must also provide them with the contact details of the Ombudsman.
The evidence shows that it took the landlord 15 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The delay was not excessive. However, there is no evidence it contacted the resident to explain the reason for the delay, or that it provided the details of the Ombudsman during this time. This was both a departure from its complaints policy, and the Code.
The landlord was unable to provide us with a copy of the resident’s escalation request. We therefore cannot assess whether the landlord responded appropriately within the timescales set out in its policy. It is unclear whether it no longer has a copy of the correspondence, or if it simply did not provide this for our investigation. However, this information was not readily available for our consideration, which is a record keeping failure.
The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. In its stage 2 acknowledgement the landlord summarised the issues the resident had asked it to investigate. One of these was that she felt the repair to her door had not been fully completed because it needed to be replaced. Despite this, the landlord made no mention of the door in its stage 2 response, and gave no explanation as to why it had not replaced it. It had therefore failed to fully respond to the resident’s complaint, which was a departure from the Code.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord referred to ceiling and balcony repairs in error. The resident confirmed that these matters were not part of her complaint. This demonstrates a lack of attention to detail and a failure to quality check the response before issuing it. Landlords ought to ensure all complaint responses contain accurate information before sending them to avoid any confusion. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to restore the resident’s confidence in its services.
As a result of the failings we have identified we have made a finding of maladministration. We will order it to pay the resident £150 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience its poor complaint handling was likely to have caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident in line with our guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
2. pay the resident £750 compensation comprising of:
  1. £600 it had offered in its stage 1 and 2 responses. If it has already paid this to the resident, it should offset this against the total compensation ordered by us.
  2. £150 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
3. write to the resident with a date on which it will replace her front door. If it is waiting for a new door to be delivered, it must provide a provisional date for the works. It must provide us with a copy of the letter within the above mentioned timescale.