Hyde Housing Association Limited — case 202331108

Decision Case ID 202331108 Decision type Investigation Landlord Hyde Housing Association Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 21 November 2025 Background The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house. She has physical and mental health vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord. The resident’s social workers have authorisation to discuss the resident’s tenancy and repairs with the landlord. For ease of readability, throughout the report they will be referred to collectively as ‘the representative’.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of: Kitchen defects. Shower repairs. External paving repairs. External wall repairs. Repairs to the stairway handrail. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We have found that there was: Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen defects. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the shower repairs.

Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the external paving repairs. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the external wall repairs. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the stairway handrail. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons We found that: In relation to all the repairs listed above, the landlord unreasonably exceeded its target timescales, did not take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities, and failed to appropriately put things right for her.

The landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when managing her complaint. It also did not comply with its complaint handling timescales. 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 writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a staff member of director level or above. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic, and has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than 19 December 2025 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £3,345 made up as follows: £600 for its handling of her reports of kitchen defects. £1,945 for its handling of her reports of shower repairs. This comprises a £1,345 rent-based calculation and £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused. £400 for its handling of her reports of external paving repairs. £100 for its handling of her reports of external wall repairs. £100 for its handling of her reports repairs to the stairway handrail.

£200 for its handling of her complaint. This includes its previous offer of £100, plus £100 for the additional failings identified in this report. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 19 December 2025 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 6 February 2023 The resident sent the landlord a letter.

She said she wanted to make a complaint as she was unhappy with its handling of her reports of repairs to her kitchen, shower, external paving, external wall and stairway handrail. 24 May 2023 The landlord received the resident’s complaint letter. 12 July 2023 The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It apologised to the resident for the repair delays and acknowledged it had failed to take into consideration her vulnerabilities when attempting to arrange appointments.

It offered the resident £300 compensation. It said £100 was in recognition of the repair delays, £100 for the distress and inconvenience it had caused, £50 for “customer effort”, and £50 for the complaint handling delays. It had arranged 2 appointments to complete the outstanding repairs to the external brickwork, handrail and leaking tap. 25 October 2023 The resident’s representative informed the landlord that she wanted to escalate her complaint because the repairs were outstanding.

12 April 2024 The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: It apologised to the resident for the delay in resolving the kitchen defects. The shower repair was not raised as part of the original investigation, but it had arranged an appointment for 8 May 2024 to “box-in” the shower. It acknowledged that the external paving repair was outstanding and had arranged a repair appointment for 8 May 2024. The external wall repair was completed on 20 July 2023. It had cancelled the repair for the handrail because the resident’s representative had informed it in July 2023 that it was no longer required.

It offered the resident £650 (superseding its previous offer of £300). It said that £250 was for the repair delays, £200 for the distress and inconvenience, £100 for “customer effort”, and £100 for complaint handling. Referral to the Ombudsman In November 2025, the representative told us that as an outcome to the resident’s complaint she wanted the landlord to offer assurance that it would provide a better repairs service in the future. She also wanted to be awarded a higher level of compensation for the distress and inconvenience it had caused her.

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 kitchen defects Finding Maladministration What we have not investigated The resident’s representative reported issues of discrimination in relation to how the landlord handled the repairs.

We may not consider complaints which concern matters where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. If the resident believes she has been unlawfully discriminated against, she may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on her options. Our investigation is limited to how the landlord responded to the concerns expressed.

As mentioned above, the landlord offered the resident £650 compensation as a way of putting things right for her. Aside from the complaint handling, it’s unclear how much compensation was apportioned for each complaint issue. We are therefore unable to fully assess the appropriateness of the landlord’s offers of compensation. The orders of compensation we have made replace any compensation offered by the landlord and have been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

What we have investigated The landlord’s repairs procedure states that it has 3 repair categories. It will attend to “emergency repairs” within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. It will respond to all other “anytime repairs” within 20 working days. “Major repairs or complex works” will be undertaken as per its stock investment procedures. On 28 August 2019, the resident informed the landlord that there were outstanding remedial repairs in the kitchen, following the installation of a new boiler in March 2019.

This included repairing damaged walls around the pipework. We found the landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs between August 2019 and May 2024 unsatisfactory. This is because: It was due to attend the property on 3 occasions between 28 August 2019 and 1 November 2019 to “fit a wall unit around [the] boiler to cover holes”. However, from the evidence provided it is not clear if it attended, or what repairs it completed. On 5 October 2021, it raised a repair to “replace the tiling, following the new boiler [installation].

” It attended outside of its target timescales on 3 December 2021 (36 working days against a target of 20 working days). It is also unclear what repairs it completed during the appointment. On 28 June 2022, it raised a repair to “investigate complaint, following boiler install”. It appropriately attended 2 working days later (on 30 June 2022) and took photographs of the affected areas. However, it did not raise any follow-on works. Following the representative informing it (on 27 January 2023) that the “kitchen was never made good after the boiler replacement”, it failed to take any appropriate action.

Upon receipt of the resident’s complaint letter (on 24 May 2023), it did not raise a repair until 13 July 2023 to investigate the issues. This interval of 36 working days (approximately 7 weeks) was unreasonable. Following the inspection appointment on 28 July 2023, to “assess the position of the flue so [it could] plaster”, it did not raise any follow-on works. Despite the representative requesting an update on the repairs in September 2023 and October 2023, it did not respond or take any appropriate action.

It raised a repair on 12 April 2024 to “make good tile areas following 2019 boiler installation” and completed the outstanding works on 24 May 2024. This exceeded its target timescales (30 working days against a target of 20). However, in mitigation, we acknowledge that during this period the landlord had attempted to arrange an earlier appointment via the representative. Overall, it took the landlord approximately 5 years to resolve the kitchen defects. This was inadequate, as it excessively exceeded its repair target timescales.

It was positive that the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response (on 12 April 2024) that it had “failed to take accountability of the damage that was left”. Had it not done so, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made. However, as explained earlier – that it is not clear if the landlord’s offer of compensation was in recognition of its failings for this specific issue – we find that it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration.

To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of shower repairs Finding Severe maladministration What we did not investigate We understand that the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her request for it to install a bath. However, we have seen no evidence that she raised this issue as a formal complaint.

As we have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first, we have not considered this within our assessment. If the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord has dealt with such issues, she may choose to make a further complaint, then refer it to us for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. What we did investigate The evidence suggests that the shower in the wet room was the resident’s only form of bathing in the property.

On 12 August 2022 and 9 January 2023, the landlord attended the resident’s property to investigate her concerns about the wet room shower not draining away properly. It appropriately attended both appointments within its target timescales. However, from the available evidence, it is not clear what work was undertaken. This is indicative of poor record keeping. On 27 January 2023, the landlord raised a follow-on repair to install a new shower transformer. We find the interval of 15 working days to raise this work (following the appointment on 9 January 2023) unreasonable.

The landlord attended the property on 20 February 2023. Within the resident’s request to make a complaint (dated 6 February 2023), she said that she had “severe” psoriasis and her “skin was really suffering” because she had been unable to use the shower “for over a month” as a new transformer was required. In the absence of any available evidence to the contrary, we have relied on the resident’s version of events. We therefore find that it was unacceptable that the landlord left the resident with no form of alternative bathing facilities for approximately 42 calendar days.

Furthermore, it is not clear if the landlord successfully installed a new transformer during the appointment on 20 February 2023. However, it is reasonable to conclude that it did not, as it raised the same repair on 26 April 2023 and reattended on 15 May 2023. Again, the landlord’s repair records do not explain what work was undertaken during this appointment. As the landlord has not provided any explanation as to why the transformer was not installed, or why it unreasonably delayed raising the works again, we find that it acted inappropriately and at odds with its repairs procedure.

During the landlord’s stage 1 investigation, it failed to confirm if the issue remained outstanding and therefore did not raise any of the necessary repairs. The representative requested an update from the landlord on 3 occasions between 30 August 2023 and 28 September 2023, and specifically stated that no shower repairs had been undertaken and it was “still unusable”. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord did not raise a new repair. The resident’s feelings of being ignored are highlighted.

On 13 February 2024, the representative reported that the resident’s shower was not working and that she needed a daily shower due to her medical needs. The landlord attended the property on 15 February 2024. While this was not an excessive delay, given the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities (and as the shower was her only form of bathing), it would have been appropriate for it to attend within 24 hours, as per its repairs procedure. The repair records (from the appointment on 15 February 2024) stated that the shower was working, but “the pump and transformer cover [had] been removed by someone”, so it “fitted a waterproof joint so tenant [could] use shower”.

This corroborates the resident’s concerns (from February 2023) about not being able to safely use the shower due to the transformer cover being removed. Despite the landlord ensuring the shower was safe to use (on 15 February 2024), the interval of 37 working days between it attending the property and raising the follow-on works (to “box-in the pump”) on 8 April 2024 was unreasonable. Although a marginal delay, the landlord also exceeded its repair timescales by attending the property to complete the work on 8 May 2024 (22 working days against a target of 20 working days).

Based on the landlord’s stage 2 response that the shower repair did not form part of the resident’s original complaint, it is reasonable to conclude that its offer of compensation was not in recognition of this specific issue. We therefore find that it failed to put things right for the resident. For the reasons summarised above, we have made a finding of severe maladministration. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

We also find that a compensation award based on rent is appropriate in this case, as the resident was unable to access showering facilities. We consider that a 20% rent reduction is appropriate over a period of 375 days. The amount has been calculated from 6 February 2023 (when the resident told the landlord she was unable to shower) to 15 February 2024 (when the landlord confirmed that it had completed a repair that allowed the resident to use the shower). We have used the applicable weekly rent charges for the financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24, provided by the landlord.

Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of external paving repairs Finding Maladministration On 12 July 2022, the landlord raised a repair to inspect the paving area of the resident’s property as it was “uneven and causing a potential trip hazard for [her]”. The landlord appropriately attended the property on 27 July 2022 (a timeframe of 12 working days against a target of 20 working days). The landlord raised the follow-on works on 6 August 2022 (8 working days later) to “repoint 12 square metre slabs, relay curb edging to allow gate to open, and relay slabs where needed”.

Although not an excessive delay, given that the resident had raised safety concerns, we find that the landlord lacked sufficient urgency in raising the required works. The landlord’s repair records are lacking. However, based on the available evidence it is reasonable to conclude that it did not undertake the required work. This is supported by the fact it raised the same repair again 4 months later (on 19 December 2022). The landlord attended outside of its target timescales on 28 January 2023 (27 working days against a target of 20 working days).

Based again on the lack of available evidence, it is not clear what work was undertaken. Despite this, it is reasonable to conclude that the required work was not completed satisfactorily. This is because the resident said (within her complaint letter on 6 February 2023) that “after almost a year, [the landlord] had finally resolved some of the issues, but [she] still had some uneven slabs that needed levelling”. The landlord did not raise any repairs after it received the resident’s complaint letter (on 24 May 2023) or following its stage 1 response (on 12 July 2023).

This was inappropriate. After receiving confirmation from us that the resident wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 26 March 2024, the landlord raised a new repair 9 working days later (on 8 April 2024). While we accept that the repair arranged for 8 May 2024 was outside the landlord’s target timescales, the evidence suggests that this was made at the request of the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response (on 12 April 2024) that it had failed “to take any clear action”.

However, we find that the landlord did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. This is because, as previously explained, it is not clear if its offer of compensation was in recognition of its failings for this specific issue. It is noted that the landlord was unable to gain access to complete the repair on 8 May 2024 and 19 June 2024, so we cannot find that it acted unreasonably during this period. The landlord’s records show that it attended the resident’s property to undertake the required repairs on 6 August 2024, and she “checked the job and was pleased with it”.

However, the resident’s representative informed the landlord on 20 February 2025 that the some of the works patio works were still outstanding. The representative informed us that the works were completed “some time in 2025”, and the landlord’s records suggest that it did so in June 2025. The exact date is unknown, which amounts to a further record keeping failure. Taking into account the delays outside of the landlord’s control (between May 2024 and August 2024), it took approximately 3 years to complete the repairs satisfactorily.

For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her compensation. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of external wall repairs Finding Maladministration On 27 January 2023, the representative informed the landlord that “the brick work was damaged in the corner of the property”. We have seen no evidence that the landlord raised the necessary repairs, which was unreasonable.

Within the resident’s complaint letter (dated 6 February 2023), she said that the external wall had not been repaired and she “was told she must have done it herself but [she was] visually impaired and doesn’t drive”. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we are unable to make an assessment on this due to the lack of documentary evidence available. The landlord raised a repair on 29 June 2023. This was an unreasonable delay, as it was 26 working days after it had received the resident’s complaint letter (on 24 May 2023).

The landlord promptly completed the repair within 15 working days (on 20 July 2023). Despite this, it took a total of 6 months to complete the work, which significantly exceeded its repair target timescales of 20 working days. As previously explained – that it is unclear if the landlord’s offer of compensation was in recognition of this specific issue – we find that it failed to appropriately put things right for the resident. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration.

As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the stairway handrail Finding Service failure The evidence suggests that at the request of the resident’s occupational therapist, she had a second handrail installed on the stairway of her property. The landlord raised a repair on 17 January 2022 to refix the stairway handrail as it had “come undone and was loose”. It attended on 9 March 2022.

Taking into account the resident’s limited mobility and the health and safety risks associated with a loose handrail, we find the landlord acted inappropriately when it exceeded its repair timescales (37 working days against a target of 20 working days). As explained earlier, the landlord’s repair records are limited, and it is therefore not clear what work was undertaken during the appointment. On 30 July 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the handrail was loose again.

The landlord appropriately attended within its target timescales on 12 August 2022. Despite this, it is again unclear what work it undertook during this appointment. On 27 January 2023, the resident’s representative informed the landlord that the handrail had “come off the wall and [the resident] only had one banister rail”. Due to the lack of documentary evidence available and the conflicting versions of events, it is unclear how and when the handrail was removed. We are therefore unable to make an assessment on this matter.

The landlord attended the property 13 working days later (on 14 February 2023), which was within its target timescales. As before, due to the lack of comprehensive repair records, it is unclear what work was undertaken during this appointment. Upon receiving the resident’s complaint letter on 24 May 2023, where she stated that she “had to live with one handrail for 6 months”, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to raise a new repair. The fact that it did not do so until 35 working days later (when it issued its stage 1 response on 12 July 2023) was unreasonable.

On 13 July 2023, the records show that the representative informed the landlord that the resident was “happy with the handrail condition” and no further works were required. The landlord subsequently cancelled the repair, which was fair. Due to the delays in attending and arranging the repairs, we have made a finding of service failure. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Maladministration The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.

It will then respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will provide a response within 20 working days. Its response timescales will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1, and a further 20 working days at stage 2, without good reason. The resident’s letter to the landlord, in which she asked to make a complaint, was dated 6 February 2023. The landlord’s records show that it did not receive the letter until 24 May 2023. Though we appreciate it would have been frustrating for the resident if she thought the landlord had received her letter and not responded, we cannot find that it acted unreasonably during this period.

The landlord attempted to call the resident on 25 May 2023 and 31 May 2023 to discuss her complaint. However, this was inappropriate, as the landlord had been aware since 2009 that the resident had a hearing impairment. She had also reminded it of this fact within her complaint letter, where she said she was “profoundly deaf, [could not] hear on the telephone and [found] reading and writing difficult”. In this instance, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact her representative (her occupational therapist who was authorised on her account at this time) to discuss the complaint and outcomes sought.

We find that the landlord acted inappropriately when it wrote to the resident on 7 June 2023 to inform her that it was closing her complaint as it “did not have enough information” to start the investigation. While we appreciate that it is good practice for landlords to speak with customers about their complaint, the resident’s letter (dated 6 February 2023) was comprehensive and clearly explained what issues she was dissatisfied with. The resident’s feelings of being ignored are highlighted.

Following receipt of a third-party authorisation form (from a different support worker), the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 19 June 2023. It informed the representative on 23 June 2023 that it required additional time to complete the investigation and that it would provide a response by 6 July 2023. However, it did not provide the response until 12 July 2023. The lack of communication during this period was unreasonable. Despite this, the landlord provided its stage 1 response within 17 working days of the acknowledgement, which was within the extended target timescale outlined in its complaints policy.

It was appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident within its stage 1 response for the delays it had caused during the handling of her repairs. However, overall we find its complaint response lacking, as it did not provide an explanation or outcome for each of the individual repairs. Although not obligated to do so, it is good practice for landlords to provide a timeline of events for the substantive issues within complaint responses. This allows them to demonstrate that they have undertaken a comprehensive investigation and considered all the facts within the case.

As the landlord did not do so in this case, we find that it overlooked some important facts within its final response. The representative contacted the landlord on 25 October 2023 to escalate the resident’s complaint. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the request, which was inappropriate. As such, the representative required intervention from us to escalate the complaint in March 2024. This was an expenditure of the representative’s time and effort which should not have been necessary.

The landlord adhered to its complaint handling timescales at stage 2, following our intervention in March 2024, and overall, its response was positive. This is because it evidenced it had undertaken a reasonably thorough investigation into most of the resident’s concerns and explained what service improvements it had recently implemented to prevent similar issues from reoccurring. Despite the above, we find that the landlord it acted inappropriately when it stated that “the [shower repair] was not raised within this investigation and therefore cannot be included within [the resident’s] stage 2 escalation”.

This was incorrect and confusing, as the resident had told the landlord on 6 February 2023, she was specifically dissatisfied with the shower repair. Also, within the landlord’s acknowledgement email (on 19 June 2023) it referenced the “wet room” repairs. An effective complaint resolution requires a process designed to put things right. We find that the landlord’s lack of action and ownership to undertake the outstanding repairs promised was inappropriate. It would have been appropriate for it to monitor the agreed actions through to resolution, with regular updates to the resident via her representative.

The landlord offered the resident a total of £100 for its complaint handling (£50 at stage 1 and £50 at stage 2). For the complaint handling delays alone, we consider this an appropriate amount. However, overall, we find the amount was low and failed to account for all the failings identified in this report. As mentioned earlier in the report, while not obliged to do so, it is good practice for landlords to explain to its residents how much they have awarded for each investigated complaint point.

The landlord’s lack of transparency in this case caused the resident to feel that her concerns were not being taken seriously. It also made it impracticable for us to assess the appropriateness of its compensation offer. Additionally, the offer was not proportionate to the failures it ought reasonably to have been aware of during the complaints process. Taking into account the observations above, we have made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional amount of compensation.

Learning Knowledge and information management (record keeping) The landlord’s repair record keeping was poor, which made it difficult for us to make an assessment on several aspects of the case. Communication The landlord’s communication with the resident and her representatives throughout the handling of the substantive issues and complaint was lacking and inconsistent. On several occasions it also failed to tailor its communication methods to the resident’s needs.