Hyde Housing Association Limited (202452382)

Decision
Case ID	202452382
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	21 May 2026

Background

1. The resident reported several concerns to the landlord about the condition of his home and outstanding repairs. This includes cracking from subsidence, heating, hot water, the condition of the kitchen and guttering. He was unhappy with its response. He has used a representative to bring the complaint to us. For ease of reference, we have referred to “the resident” throughout this report.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for repairs in the property.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for repairs in the property.
   2. Complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs in the property

4. The landlord did not complete all repairs in line with its repair policy timescales. There were shortcomings in its communication with the resident. It made a settlement offer prior to our intervention, in addition to compensation within its final complaint response. We find this exceeds the sum we may have awarded in line with our compensation guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord recognised its shortcomings in its complaint handling and offered reasonable redress in line with our compensation guidance.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £4,500 settlement agreed, plus the £75 compensation awarded at stage 2 for its communication failures, if it has not yet done so. We have made a finding of reasonable redress on the basis it pays this to him.
We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £125 offered at stage 2 for its complaint handling shortcomings, if it has not yet done so. We have made a finding of reasonable redress on the basis it pays this to him.
The landlord should write to the resident to set out its final position concerning the radiators in the property. It ought to explain the information it has relied on when making its decision.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 October 2024	The resident complained about the condition of the property, reporting subsidence with cracks throughout. He stated the kitchen required upgrading and that the heating and hot water system was in poor condition and needed replacement. He also reported that the landlord erected scaffolding in September 2024 for guttering repairs, but the works had not progressed.
12 November 2024	The resident chased the landlord for a response to his complaint.
22 November 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1.
27 November 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 as he had not received a complaint response.
6 December 2024	The landlord extended the response date for its stage 1 complaint response.
8 December 2024	The resident asked the landlord to direct all future correspondence to his solicitor.
15 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It summarised the position on each repair. It noted that the resident had initiated the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims in December 2025. It advised that it was managing the repairs and his compensation request through its formal disrepair process. It added that its legal team would handle correspondence with his solicitor. It apologised for the delay in its complaint handling and offered £100 compensation.
3 February 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2. We have not seen a copy of his escalation request that he submitted post stage 1.
28 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, reiterating its stage 1 position that it was addressing the reported repairs through its legal disrepair process. It advised that, depending on operative availability, it may offer short-notice appointments to progress works. It also stated that it had been unable to gain access to the property via the resident’s legal representative to complete repairs. It acknowledged communication failings in relation to the boiler and the crack in the wall and offered £75 compensation. It also offered £125 for shortcomings in its complaint handling, inclusive of the £100 offered at stage 1. This resulted in a total compensation offer of £200.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred his complaint to us. To resolve matters, he wants the landlord to pay compensation, apologise, review its policies, and complete all outstanding repairs.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs in the property
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not considered

6. The resident said the condition of the property had impacted his health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident said the landlord delayed completing repairs that were agreed as part of his settlement. If he considers that it failed to comply with the terms of the disrepair settlement agreement, he may wish to seek independent advice or revert to his legal representative. The enforcement of a settlement agreement falls outside of our remit and may be better suited for the courts.
8. The resident raised issues after the complaint process concluded in February 2025. We cannot investigate matters that the landlord has not first had the opportunity to address. There is no evidence he raised concerns about radiator size, permission to fit his own radiator, or missed appointments in 2026, or that these were considered through its internal complaint procedure. Accordingly, we cannot investigate these issues. He may decide to raise them directly with the landlord as a new complaint, if appropriate.

 

 

What we have considered

9. The tenancy agreement signed by the resident and landlord shows that the tenancy started on 24 May 2024. He raised several concerns about the condition of the property. This included subsidence and cracking, the condition of the boiler and hot water tank, outstanding guttering works for which scaffolding had been erected, and the condition of the kitchen.
10. In December 2024, the resident initiated the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims, citing the same issues he included within his complaint, along with additional concerns about a period without heating and hot water.
11. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it may not consider complaints where legal proceedings are underway. However, as matters were at the pre-action stage, it responded at both stages of its complaints process. It explained that it would handle the issues raised, including repairs and compensation, through its formal disrepair process, with liaison with its legal team. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances and fairly managed the resident’s expectations.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out timescales. It should attend emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe, complete routine repairs within 20 working days, and manage more complex works through planned programmes. In this case, there were delays in progressing repairs, including works relating to essential services and external elements such as guttering. The available evidence indicates that it did not consistently meet these timescales or update the resident. This amounts to a failure in its repairs service.
13. A joint expert inspection of the property took place in January 2025. This considered the condition of the property, the nature and extent of any disrepair, and appropriate remedial works. In September 2025, the resident accepted a settlement offer of £4,500 from the landlord. As the issues raised in the complaint were materially the same as those pursued through the disrepair claim, it is not appropriate for us to assess each individual repair issue in isolation.
14. In line with our compensation guidance, where parties have agreed a settlement prior to our intervention, we consider whether that settlement constitutes reasonable redress for the overall circumstances. This avoids duplicating the detailed consideration already undertaken through the pre-action protocol or awarding compensation twice for the same issues.
15. We recognise there were delays in progressing repairs and shortcomings in the landlord’s communication. These failings would reasonably have caused inconvenience, uncertainty, and distress to the resident. This is especially the case given the nature of the issues, which included structural concerns and problems with essential services such as heating and hot water. The resident also told us that he is vulnerable with health conditions, which may have increased the impact on him.
16. We have considered the landlord’s position that it experienced difficulties in arranging access to the property, including through the resident’s legal representative. The resident disputes this. The evidence available indicates that there were challenges agreeing appointments, which affected its ability to progress and complete repairs. This is a relevant mitigating factor when assessing the overall level of service failure.
17. The landlord provided a post-works inspection report dated 7 July 2025. Both parties signed the report to confirm that the contractor completed the works identified by the disrepair surveyor to an acceptable standard. This excluded the guttering, which a separate contractor completed. It later advised the resident that a neighbouring property refused access required for scaffolding removal. He confirmed to us that it completed subsidence-related works in early 2026, once ground movement had ceased, and had replaced the boiler on a like-for-like basis.
18. The resident is unhappy that the landlord did not install a combi-boiler. It was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the heating system was safe and functional. Decisions about upgrading fall within its discretion as part of its asset management responsibilities.
19. We have considered the relevant period, the nature of the issues, their impact on the resident, and mitigating factors. We are satisfied that the £4,500 settlement, plus £75 offered at stage 2 for communication failings, provides reasonable redress. This exceeds the level of compensation we would usually award for repair delays and similar impact under our compensation guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

20. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. This is extendable by up to 10 and 20 working days respectively in agreement with the resident.
21. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response times in its complaint policy were in line with the Code.
22. The resident initially complained on 21 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 November 2024, 24 working days later. It extended its complaint response time and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 January 2025, 59 working days after he complained. This was outside of the timescales in its complaints policy.
23. We have not seen a copy of the resident’s escalation request. We have raised a learning point regarding this. The stage 2 complaint acknowledgement is dated 3 February 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 19 working days later. This was in line with its policy timescale of 20 working days.
24. The landlord apologised for the shortcomings in its complaint handling and offered £125 compensation. This was in line with our guidance for complaint handling failings that delayed the complaint response by weeks or months, affecting timely resolution of the dispute. We have therefore found it offered reasonable redress.

Learning

General learning

25. It is important for landlords to see complaints as opportunities to recover failings. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Repairing Trust.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. When a landlord provides evidence to us, it is important to provide a copy of the resident’s complaint escalation request.

Communication

27. Our Spotlight report on Repairs and Maintenance highlights that failures can be reduced when landlords clearly explain what residents can expect and provide clear repair timescales. The landlord may wish to review this report to improve communication within its repairs service.