From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202422217)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422217

Hyde Housing Association Limited

19 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of damage to garden furniture by contractors and a garden theft
    2. the associated complaint

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The tenancy was signed in October 2023. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom flat with sole use of the garden. The resident lives in the property with her children. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident told us that after moving into to flat, the landlord’s contractors damaged her garden furniture. She also told us the contractors left the garden unsecured and there was a theft from her garden.
  3. On 28 July 2024, the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said that “previous complaints have been ignored.”
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 August 2024. It apologised for the “long drawn-out process.” It did not uphold the complaint as the issues had been “resolved completely.”  The landlord said it found no substantial evidence that its contractors were responsible. It apologised for distress and inconvenience and offered a goodwill gesture of £100.
  5. On 29 August 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She was not satisfied with the response provided, had given evidence that her garden had been in use by the contractors and she had provided pictures.
  6. On 6 September 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and said it was not escalating the complaint to stage 2. It said there was no new information about the complaint for it to consider.
  7. On 4 March 2025, the resident came to this Service. She told us she remained dissatisfied after the landlord’s complaint responses.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of damage to garden furniture by contractors and a garden theft

  1. The resident moved into her home in November 2023. The resident has sole use of the garden and is responsible under the tenancy agreement to keep the garden in a tidy condition.  The contractors needed access to the garden to carry out work to the block of flats. The landlord told us the contractors finished this work at the end of November 2023.
  2. The resident told the landlord in December 2023 “my garden furniture has been damaged by contractors…my items have been stolen.” She asked how to claim for these items. The resident also asked how to get the fence secured after contractors unbolted the fence and left it open in several places making her home unsafe.
  3. The landlord’s compensation and reimbursement procedure states “where a customer of Hyde or a member of the public alleges financial loss, damage to property or personal injury they shall be referred to Hyde’s Insurance Policy.”
  4. There is no evidence to show the landlord acknowledged this until the resident raised a complaint in July 2024. This is unreasonable in the circumstances because this was 151 working days. The landlord missed the opportunity to contact the resident at an early stage to resolve the matter. This may have had an impact on the landlord / resident relationship.
  5. The landlord’s records state “garden areas would not have been left unsecured overnight.” But the resident told the landlord she had provided it with the crime number and receipt for the stolen garden item.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated: “I have found that we have not failed in the service we have provided you…. the issue has now been resolved completely.”  It is not clear to this Service how the matter was resolved.
  7. In its stage 1 response, the landlord states its investigation showed the resident received the keys in October 2023 and in November 2023 moved personal belongings in. It said its records indicate that construction works on the resident’s block were completed in November 2023 and the final report from the landlord’s clerk of works had no indication of any damage to the garden furniture.
  8. This Service has not seen exact dates for the resident moving belongings in, or exact date the contractors finished at the block of flats.
  9. The landlord further states that there was no substantial evidence to suggest or prove the contractors were responsible for the damage. It goes on to say that the furniture was 11 years old and due to age and depreciation it could not be considered under warranty.
  10. In September 2025, the resident told this Service the fence has now been secured after she made multiple requests to the landlord. This Service does not have the date the fence was secured.
  11. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damage to garden furniture by contractors and the report of a theft from the garden. The resident would have had to replace the stolen garden item and her garden was left insecure. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience. This is because the landlord did not:
    1. respond to the resident when the concerns were initially raised
    2. address the resident’s concerns about the unsecured fence
    3. direct the resident to the landlord’s insurance policy

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure says a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made.” It will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days. It also states it will provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days following acknowledgement.
  2. On 22 December 2023, the resident first emailed the landlord to ask how to make a claim and get the fence secured again. The resident told the landlord:
    1. garden furniture had been damaged by contractors
    2. an item had been stolen from the garden
    3. contractors had unbolted fence and left it open
  3. The resident raised the matter on a further 3 occasions. On 29 July 2024, the resident refers to contacting the Ombudsman. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint before 30 July 2024. This was a total of 151 working days, and this was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  4. On 30 July 2024, the landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement. It outlined the complaint, and it was “aiming to provide reply within 10 working days.”  It issued its stage 1 response on 29 August 2024. This was 23 working days from the acknowledgement and was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  5. The landlord offered a goodwill gesture and this was appropriate in the circumstances. But the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was unreasonable in the circumstances because it did not make clear:
    1. how the matter was “resolved completely”
    2. it did not direct the resident to its insurance policy
    3. it did not address the securing of the garden fence
  6. On 29 August 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She said she had provided evidence of the garden being in use by the contractor and provided a crime reference for the stolen item. The resident told the landlord it left her property in an unsafe state by leaving the fencing open.
  7. In the landlord’s response of 6 September 2024, the landlord stated it was not escalating to stage 2 because at stage 1 it:
    1. made decision on the information the resident gave to the landlord
    2. responded to all points the resident made
    3. checked all the details of the complaint thoroughly
    4. there was no new information to consider which is why the landlord would not change its decision
  8. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states, “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure.”
  9. We found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint because it did not follow its own policies and procedures. The £100 offered at stage 1 by the landlord was not proportionate in relation to the overall complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £100 for the distress, inconvenience, and delays in getting matters resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we have found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damaged garden furniture and garden theft.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we have found maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance available on the website.
    2. Pay £300 directly to the resident. This is made up of:
      1. £100 as offered in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. This can be deducted if already paid to the resident
      2. £100 for the handling of reports of damage to garden furniture and the garden theft
      3. £100 for the handling of the resident’s complaint
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should provide evidence to this Service of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

  1. Consider refresher training to all complaint handling staff to ensure complaints are correctly identified and handled in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.