Hyde Housing Association Limited (202505630)

Decision
Case ID	202505630
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	29 April 2026

Background

1. The resident has complained about delays to repairs and internal remedial works following her reports of a leak from the flat above. The resident’s support worker (the representative) made the complaint on her behalf. For ease of reference, in this report both the resident and her representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak and associated repairs.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and associated repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak and associated repairs

4. The landlord did not take prompt and pro-active steps to fully trace and repair the leak. Delays in securing access and a lack of effective follow-up allowed the leak to continue for an extended period. Its response to potential hazards was slower than appropriate, and shortcomings in planning contributed to delays in completing the internal remedial works.

Complaint handling

5. Though the landlord’s complaint responses were timely, its responses did not fully address all the concerns raised in the resident’s complaint. It also did not identify service failings which had occurred, despite available evidence.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in person or by telephone to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.   A written record confirming that this apology has been provided must be supplied to us by the due date.	No later than 27 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £850 made up as follows: £800 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her reports of a leak and associated repairs. £50 for the complaint handling failures identified. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 27 May 2026
3	Communication order The landlord must contact the resident in person or by telephone by the due date to provide a clear explanation of the asbestos related events, including a timeline of the assessment and removal process, the level of any potential risk, and the steps taken to manage that risk. The landlord must also provide this information in writing to both us and the resident by the due date.	No later than 27 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She explained that after her ceiling collapsed due to a leak, water continued to enter her property. She said she believed the landlord should have treated the repair with greater urgency.
17 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint, stating it had attended within its service level agreement after the resident reported the ceiling collapse. It explained that it had experienced difficulties gaining access to the neighbour’s property to trace and repair the leak but said it had found no failures in its service. It confirmed it was arranging the internal remedial works and would oversee the repairs until completion.
19 March 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because she felt there had been communication failures and delays to the repairs. She explained that the ceiling had collapsed on 30 January 2025, but the leak was not resolved until 3 March 2025, which caused her significant distress as water was entering her kitchen during this time. She also said she had needed to call multiple times for updates.
14 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said the stage 1 response was appropriate and in line with its policies and procedures. It acknowledged the distress the situation had caused the resident but maintained that it had not failed in the service it provided and therefore could not uphold the complaint. It advised that all internal repairs had been scheduled for 24 April 2025.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She said the landlord had delayed starting the internal repairs and had not responded to her concerns about asbestos exposure. She advised the situation was causing her significant stress and affecting her mental health. As an outcome, she requested a replacement kitchen, improved communication from the landlord, and clarity on her asbestos concerns. She also said she would like an apology and compensation for the time and effort she had spent trying to resolve the matter.
21 April 2026	During her contact with us, the resident confirmed that the landlord had completed all internal remedial works, including the installation of a new kitchen.

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 reports of a leak and associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

6. On 30 January 2025, the resident reported that her kitchen ceiling had collapsed. The landlord attended the same day, in line with its emergency repair timescale, and identified a leak from the upstairs flat as the probable cause. However, it was unable to gain access to the neighbouring property to investigate further. At this stage, the landlord should have taken prompt and proactive steps to contact the neighbour and arrange access. Instead, it did not attempt to do so until 5 February 2025, 6 days later, and only after the resident reported that the leak was ongoing.
7. Following a failed access attempt on 7 February 2025, the landlord attended the neighbouring property on 13 February 2025, identified a small leak, and carried out a repair. However, there is no evidence that it checked whether this resolved the leak affecting the resident’s property, showing a lack of appropriate follow-up to confirm that the repair was effective.
8. The resident reported continued water ingress on 17 February 2025 and raised concerns about the risk of a further ceiling collapse. Although a contractor requested on 20 February 2025 for the landlord to remove the “boxing in” in the neighbouring property to allow further investigation, the landlord did not do so until 3 March 2025, delaying progress by 11 days. During this period, the landlord also failed to keep the resident informed about efforts to trace the leak, which led her to chase updates on 3 occasions. Given the ongoing leak, the earlier ceiling collapse, and the resident’s safety concerns, the landlord should have acted with greater urgency and maintained regular communication, particularly as it had first identified a leak more than a month earlier.
9. On 3 March 2025, the contractor completed a dye test, identified the source of the leak, and recommended that a plumber carry out repairs in the neighbouring property. The resident confirmed on 4 March 2025 that the leak had stopped, indicating that the landlord had completed repairs by that date. Overall, it took the landlord 33 days to stop the leak, during which time water continued to enter the resident’s property, likely causing her distress and inconvenience. While some factors were outside the landlord’s control, delays in its follow‑up actions contributed to the overall length of time taken to resolve the issue.
10. The leak caused significant internal damage to the resident’s property. The landlord appropriately completed an inspection on 4 February 2025 and raised remedial works on 10 February 2025 to repair the kitchen ceiling, replace the flooring, and renew the kitchen units, which was a timely response. However, it did not request asbestos testing of the kitchen ceiling until 18 February 2025, 19 days after the collapse, despite advising its contractor that it presumed asbestos was present and that the test was required on an emergency basis due to potential disturbance. As asbestos is a potential hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), the landlord should have assessed and managed this risk more promptly. Its delay in doing so was inappropriate and likely distressing to the resident.
11. In the initial complaint on 11 February 2025, the resident’s support worker said they expected the landlord to consider temporarily moving the resident due to the circumstances. On 26 February 2025, the landlord carried out a further inspection and concluded that it could complete the repairs with the resident remaining in the property. It also recorded that the resident did not wish to be moved temporarily. While it was appropriate for the landlord to assess whether a temporary move was necessary considering the concerns raised by the support worker, it is unclear whether it took potential asbestos risks into account when making this decision.
12. The asbestos test was completed on 27 February 2025, 9 days after it had been requested. The landlord provided no explanation for why the test was not completed within the 48‑hour emergency timescale it had requested. The landlord’s records also do not clearly record the outcome of the test, highlighting shortcomings in its record keeping. However, contractor documentation dated 10 March 2025 confirmed that asbestos was removed from the property, making it reasonable to conclude that asbestos had been present. Overall, it took the landlord 39 days following the ceiling collapse to request testing and remove the asbestos. This did not reflect the level of urgency required given the potential risk to the resident’s health.
13. After the landlord issued its final response on 14 April 2025, the resident raised concerns the same day about potential exposure to asbestos (addressed below in paragraph 18). The landlord replied on 14 April 2025, stating that it had removed the asbestos on 10 March 2025. On 16 April 2025, the resident asked the landlord to respond directly to her concerns about exposure to asbestos. There is no evidence that the landlord did so, which was unreasonable given her specific request. This failure to provide an explanation likely caused the resident uncertainty and distress. We have therefore made an order regarding the landlord’s communication on this matter.
14. It was reasonable that the landlord did not progress the internal repairs until it had fully resolved the leak and removed the asbestos. In its stage 1 response on 17 March 2025, the landlord said it was arranging the internal remedial works and would oversee the repairs through to completion. However, it did not provide the resident with any timescales, leaving her uncertain about when the works would be completed.
15. In its stage 2 response on 14 April 2025, the landlord addressed this omission and confirmed that it had arranged for the remedial works to be completed on 24 April 2025. On 2 May 2025, the resident contacted the landlord to report that it had not completed any of the scheduled works. The landlord did not respond, which led the resident to chase the matter again on 8 May 2025. By this point, 2 months had passed since the asbestos removal, and the landlord had taken no substantive steps to progress the internal repairs. This was unreasonable, particularly given the delays the resident had already experienced.
16. The landlord began the internal repairs on 9 May 2025. However, its internal records show that it could not complete the flooring until it replaced the kitchen, as the units were too damaged to remove and refit. Date‑stamped photographs show that the landlord completed the internal repairs on 10 June 2025, 92 days after the asbestos removal, significantly exceeding its 30‑day routine repair timescale. While replacing a kitchen is a complex repair and accounted for some delay, the landlord had already identified in February 2025 that the kitchen units were in poor condition and required replacement. Failures in the landlord’s handling of the reports and its planning of the works therefore unreasonably prolonged the overall repair process.
17. In her initial complaint on 11 February 2025, the resident said that the leak had damaged her belongings. However, the landlord did not address this issue in its stage 1 response (assessed below as part of the complaint handling). It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate this further, for example by requesting photographs of the damaged items. This would have enabled it to provide appropriate advice, such as signposting the resident to make a claim through her contents insurance or considering whether the matter should be referred to its liability insurer. By failing to do so, the landlord missed an opportunity to give the resident clear and timely advice.
18. The resident told us that she has asthma, emphysema, and mental health difficulties, and that the situation had caused her significant distress. The landlord was aware of these vulnerabilities. The resident also raised concerns about potential exposure to asbestos and the impact this may have had on her existing health conditions. If the resident believes the situation caused an injury, it would be fairer and more effective for her to pursue a personal injury claim, as the courts can rely on independent medical evidence to determine the cause and duration of any injury. We have therefore not investigated this aspect further. We can, however, consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
19. The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaint investigation and, as a result, did not offer any compensation as part of its complaint responses. We consider a payment of £800 to be appropriate to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. This has been calculated in line with our compensation guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures which had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

20. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in April 2024. The timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy were consistent with the requirements of the Code.
21. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 4 working days. It notified the resident of an extension on 3 March 2025, which was within the 10‑working‑day response period, and said it expected to respond by 17 March 2025 – an extension of 10 working days. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 March 2025, in line with the revised timeframe provided. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days and issued its response on 14 April 2025, 13 days after acknowledgement, which was within its policy timescales and compliant with the Code.
22. The landlord’s complaint responses did not fully address all the points raised in the resident’s initial complaint. There was no acknowledgement of the resident’s concerns about the damage to her belongings, despite her mentioning this on at least 2 occasions, leaving this aspect of the complaint unresolved
23. The stage 2 complaint was the landlord’s final opportunity to fully review its handling of the substantive issue, yet it did not identify the service failures that had occurred in its handling of the leak. This was inconsistent with the available evidence and shows a lack of thoroughness in its investigation. This was a missed opportunity to rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship, failing to use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
24. We consider a payment of £50 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures identified. This is in accordance with our compensation guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or put right.

Learning

25. The landlord should ensure that it conducts thorough investigations when handling complaints. Complaint responses should address all aspects of the complaint and should reflect and be proportionate to the resident’s concerns.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord’s repair records lacked sufficient detail and did not consistently record the outcomes of appointments, resulting in gaps in the information available. While some details appeared in the landlord’s complaint responses, we could not verify the events described against its repair records. The absence of accurate, timely records limits the landlord’s ability to demonstrate what action it took. The landlord should ensure it has systems in place to accurately and consistently record the outcome of every appointment.
27. There were further gaps in the landlord’s records, including the absence of the outcome of the asbestos test carried out on 27 February 2025. In addition, the landlord told us that it had been unable to gain access to survey the kitchen for replacement, whereas the resident reported that the kitchen had already been replaced. These inconsistencies suggest that the landlord’s records were not fully up to date and highlight areas where it could strengthen its record‑keeping processes.

Communication

28. There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord. It did not keep the resident informed of the progress of the repairs as frequently as it should have, which led her to chase and request updates.