Hackney Housing Co-operative Limited (202225603)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225603

Hackney Housing Co-operative Limited

20 May 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Handling of electrical works in the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the housing co-operative, which is controlled by its members. She has had a periodic tenancy at the property, which is a basement flat, since 2017. In this report, the co-operative, will be referred to as the landlord.
In 2018 the resident opened a legal case in respect of a number of repair issues at the property. The resident reported mould on 23 September 2021. The landlord requested a damp survey but cancelled this as the resident had raised the issue as part of a legal disrepair case. We have not seen evidence that this legal case was pursued by the resident or lodged at court.
The resident made a complaint via us on 16 March 2023. She said there was mould throughout the property and “mushrooms” on her daughter’s bedroom wall. She queried if the landlord had used some of its funding to remove mould at her neighbour’s property.
In May 2023 the landlord said in internal correspondence that it would carry out work to address the damp and mould, rather than spend money on solicitors in a disrepair case. A surveyor attended on 24 August 2023. The survey identified a number of areas affected by damp and mould and suggested remedial works.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 8 September 2023. It apologised for the damp and mould. It found major works were required. It arranged an electrical safety test for 15 August 2023 as a contractor had found the electrics were not fully functional. It said it could compensate the resident for use of any cleaning products or a dehumidifier.
The resident contacted us for help escalating her complaint. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 11 April 2024. It apologised the damp works and electrical works had not been completed. As the damp works were major works, they were being progressed in a “reasonable timeframe”. It acknowledged delays in its complaint responses. It offered a total £200 compensation for repair delays and its complaint handling.
On 1 December 2024 the resident referred her case to us. She said there were issues outstanding and she had been waiting years for action. She believed the landlord was “lying” and not dealing with the issues. The resident acknowledged the landlord did mould works in 2016, but the mould came back. She requested the landlord do as follows:
1. Complete the repairs to the damp and mould.
2. Investigate faulty electrics, electric meter, a neighbour’s balcony being unsafe and make good the required repairs.
3. Award £9,600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Calculated at £100 a month for the last 8 years.
Following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the following observations were made and actions were conducted by the landlord:
1. An electrical safety test identified aspects as “unsatisfactory”.
2. The resident raised another complaint via her councillor. This included concerns about her neighbour’s use of electricity, damage to a TV, a leaking toilet, scaffolding and rent arrears.
3. It offered an additional £100 compensation for the repair delays.
4. In January 2025 the landlord acknowledged there was ongoing damp and mould. It was waiting for works to be scheduled.
5. The landlord told us the resident’s conduct had resulted in “ongoing delays and complications”. This included its staff being subject to “verbal abuse and inappropriate behaviour” from the resident. Such behaviour had “exacerbated” the delays.

Scope of investigation

Within her communication, the resident said the situation had harmed her physical and mental health. She also said her daughter’s heath had been affected. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of any such injury, testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy to this through the courts. While we cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inactions on health, if we identify a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result.
During her correspondence the resident raised other issues of concern. As these issues were not part of the formal complaint to the landlord being considered, these cannot be investigated at this stage. This is because the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate complaints and put things right if failings have occurred. For clarity, the matters, which do not form part of this assessment are as follows:
1. Damage to a TV.
2. Rent arrears.
3. A neighbour’s use of water and electricity, including tampering with the electricity meter.
4. A leaking toilet.
5. Scaffolding at a neighbouring property.
6. A neighbour’s balcony being unsafe.
We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and staff involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for an investigation to be carried out and an informed decision to be made. The resident said the damp and mould had been ongoing for around the last 9 years. We have seen that she made a complaint about a number of repair issues in 2018, however she did not progress this further than stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint’s process.
It is our role to decide how to consider and investigate complaints subject to the Scheme, taking account of the evidence of failure presented. We acknowledge that in this case substantial time had passed between the resident’s first reports of damp and mould, her subsequent reports of damp and mould in September 2021 and her complaint which was acknowledged by the landlord on 16 March 2023.
Our Scheme states we may not consider complaints brought to a landlord’s attention within a reasonable timeframe, that normally being 12 months. When deciding the scope of this investigation we have considered the following points:
1. The resident complained in 2018 but chose not to escalate the matters.
2. The subsequent matters reported by her in 2021 were what was considered by the landlord in its complaint process which began in March 2023, and the issues were present throughout the interim period.
3. The landlord acknowledged the issues had been ongoing since 2021 in its complaint response.
As such, we have exercised our discretion and it is appropriate for this investigation to focus on the period from September 2021 onwards. This is when the landlord acknowledged the resident had reported damp and mould in the property and what it investigated as part of its complaints process. Reference to events that occurred prior to this are only to provide context.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on 23 September 2021. On 19 November 2021 the landlord’s notes state it gave authority for a survey of the resident’s property to be conducted. The landlord’s notes show between this date and March 2022 the survey had not taken place and internal notes were made enquiring why. The landlord’s records state the reason for the delay was due to difficulties contacting the resident. We have not been provided with evidence which details what attempts were made by the landlord to reach the resident during this time.
In April 2022, the landlord noted the damp and mould works were part of a legal disrepair case raised by the resident. It’s repairs log noted the damp survey was marked as “no work required”. There was subsequently a gap in correspondence provided by the landlord to us until May 2023. The landlord sent internal emails to say it would carry out the work rather than spend money on solicitors. Following this, in July 2023, it said it would arrange a damp and mould survey.
The resident contacted us for help with her complaint. We contacted the landlord who confirmed it would take the resident’s contact with us from 16 March 2023 as a complaint. This included the resident’s concerns of mould throughout the household and “mushrooms” on her daughter’s bedroom wall. She felt this had impacted their health. She also queried how the landlord allocated funds to address damp and mould.
A damp and mould survey was carried out on 24 August 2023. This was around 21 months after the landlord had first acknowledged the damp and mould and the need for a survey. The survey found as follows:
1. External render repairs had been completed. Following this, it seemed moisture may have become trapped inside the property if a “drying regime” had not been completed.
2. There were signs of water ingress and/or high moisture readings in the bedroom, hallway, bathroom, lobby and under the stairs.
3. The likely cause was rising damp. Due to the condition of the external stairs, water was entering though the tiles and wall joints.
4. The bathroom extractor fan was positioned too low to function correctly.
5. It recommended a number of remedial works.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 8 September 2023. It said as follows
1. It acknowledged the resident had first reported damp and mould in September 2021. It apologised she was still experiencing this.
2. It had asked major works to be arranged as soon as possible.
3. It put aside a budget each year to resolve damp and mould. This was allocated based on vulnerabilities. It noted the resident’s concerns about the impact on the health of the household.
4. It could offer compensation for any dehumidifiers and/or cleaning products needed as a result of damp and mould.
By this stage, the landlord had been aware that there had been damp and mould in the property for around 2 years. It was also aware from its surveyor, the extent of the impact on the property and the works needed. The landlord said it had noted the resident’s vulnerability and health concerns, however, it failed to offer any compensation for not addressing the mould for the last 2 years. Although the landlord did offer to compensate for any dehumidifier use, there is no evidence it offered to provide a dehumidifier.
The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. It was introduced under the Housing Act 2004 and applies to residential properties in England and Wales. The HHSRS states damp and mould in a property could be a hazard.
Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
There is no evidence the landlord sought to reduce the impact of damp and mould via mould washes from the time of the report up to its complaint response. This was a missed opportunity to improve the situation for the resident whilst the root cause was still to be tackled. This failure to make things better was particularly concerning especially in light of the health concerns of the household. As such, the landlord failed to show it had considered the possible hazard posed to the resident and her daughter of living with damp and mould for around 2 years.
The landlord raised work for the damp and mould on 25 September 2023. This was a month after the works had been identified by the surveyor. No explanation was provided for why it took so long raise the work. Subsequently, on 5 February 2024 the landlord marked the damp and mould works as closed, as the resident had refused access. We have been provided with records of the landlord informing the resident of the appointment date, any attempts to access the property or any steps taken to try to gain access after it had been declined. The landlord knew the damp and mould was an ongoing issue and its closure of the works in light of not being able to gain access was not appropriate given the potential hazards involved.
Following our involvement, the landlord responded at stage 2 on 11 April 2024. It said as follows:
1. It apologised the works had not been completed. Its response involved major works which it said were being progressed in a reasonable timeframe given their complexity.
2. The work was being carried out using funds set aside for damp and mould.
3. Work to the damp course and membrane was in progress. It had completed a damp proof injection. The response did not give a timescale for completion, instead saying all works were due to be “completed by xx”.
4. It appreciated the resident had been exposed to damp and mould before the works started. It had offered compensation for the “avoidable delays” given the impact on the resident’s daughter’s health.
5. The total amount offered as compensation was £200. This was for its handling of the damp and mould, outstanding electrical work and its complaint handling. The handling of electrical work and complaints have been considered separately below.
The landlord’s conclusion that it had addressed the damp and mould in a reasonable timeframe is not supported by the evidence in this case. The evidence shows that by the time of its stage 2 response, around 31 months had passed since the resident had reported the issue and had been living with damp and mould in a number of rooms. Not only is this timeframe unreasonable, the landlord made decisions during the timeframe which actively increased the time taken for the issues to be remedied. It had cancelled earlier works due to a the resident stating she would bring a disrepair case. Furthermore, the evidence suggests it had cancelled works due to no access at the property and there being no evidence that it had effectively managed the appointment in preparation.
In its communication with us following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord told us the resident’s conduct had resulted in “ongoing delays and complications in several areas”. It said its staff had been subject to “verbal abuse and inappropriate behaviour”. We have seen that the landlord imposed contact restrictions on the resident in January 2024. However, the resident’s tone of communication should not have been relied on as an explanation for why the works had been delayed.
The landlord failed to demonstrate an appreciation of the potential hazard caused to the resident and her daughter by the damp and mould. There being a disrepair case or access difficulties did not mean that the landlord no longer had to address the repair issues in a timely manner. The landlord’s reliance on reasons why it did not carry out work was unreasonable.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord offered an additional £100 for repair delays. It did not specify which repairs this was for. We have not been provided any evidence of the landlord’s decision making in respect of how it determined the additional amount of compensation. This brought its offer of compensation for its combined failures in respect of the different aspects of complaint to £300.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
The amount of compensation offered in respect of the damp and mould is not clear. Taking the compensation as £300 for the damp and mould failures, this would be towards the mid-range of our remedies guidance for where there was no permanent impact caused by a failure.
The resident has described the situation as having a significant effect on her and her daughter. It is also clear form the surveyor’s report that a number of rooms were impacted by damp and mould for a significant period of time. At the time of the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the work remined outstanding. The landlord marked some work as complete in November 2024. The resident told us that work had been competed in late April 2025. Despite these differences in dates, it is clear that the damp an mould work took over 3 years, from September 2021 to late 2024/early 2025.
Our investigation has identified failures as follows:
1. The landlord failure to complete the work required to make the property free from damp and mould in a reasonable timeframe. The overall delays were significant.
2. It failed to prioritise the work in light of the resident’s concerns about health and impact on the household.
3. It failed to demonstrate the consideration of any interim measures to reduce the impact of the damp and mould to the household and in doing, to make the situation better for the resident.
4. Its reliance on reasons why the work had been cancelled, the legal case, no access and the resident’s communication showed a lack of appreciation of its ongoing repair responsibility.
5. It did not recognise its failures and maintained it had responded appropriately.
6. Its offer of compensation was unclear and insufficient.
These failures resulted in a severe long-term impact on the resident. As such, this leads to a determination of severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. To acknowledge the impact on the resident of these failures, we have ordered additional compensation of £1,500. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there have been serious failings by the landlord which had a severe impact on a resident.

Handling of electrical works in the property

A contractor attended the property in early August 2023. It told the landlord the electrical system needed to be “sorted”. The landlord’s repairs log noted on 11 August 2023 that “electrical-EICR (planned works)” had been closed “18 mths ago”.
The resident did not raise concerns about the electrics in her original complaint and it is not clear when she raised the matter. However, the landlord responded about the issue at stage 1 of its complaints process on 8 September 2023. It said its contractor had told it the electrics required an “overhaul” as the system was not fully functional. An electrical safety test had been provisionally booked for 15 August 2023.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was confusing. The planned date for the safety test had already occurred before it had issued its response. This lack of clarity will have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
Within its stage 2 response of 11 April 2024, the landlord apologised the electrics works had not been completed. It acknowledged the electrical testing had not been done in August 2023. It said it had inspected the electrics on 9 April 2024 and it needed to upgrade the fuse box. It clarified the appointment to do the work should be done within 2 weeks of its response.
The evidence shows the landlord’s stage 2 response failed to explain why the electrical testing had not gone ahead in August 2023. It also failed to explain why it had taken another 7 months, until April 2024, to rearrange this testing. As such, the response lacked openness about its failures, why these occurred, or a willingness to show it had learned from previous handling errors.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the safety inspection took place on 23 April 2024. This identified 2 aspects of the electrics as being “unsatisfactory”. We have not been provided with any evidence which demonstrates the follow on works have since been carried out.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend routine repairs within 1 calendar month. It took the landlord around 7 months to carry out the safety inspection of the electrics. This timeframe was not appropriate. The landlord’s failure to conduct safety checks in a reasonable time will have caused significant distress to the resident. This leads to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of electrical works at the property.
As stated above, the landlord offered one amount of compensation for all of its repair failures and poor complaint handling. It is not clear what portion of its compensation offer was made in respect to this complaint point.
To acknowledge the impact of the failures on the resident, we have ordered £300 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected a resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If additional time is needed, it will keep the resident informed.
It is not clear when the resident first made a complaint about the issues. However, she contacted us for help with this on 16 March 2023. Following our involvement, the landlord acknowledged this on 5 July 2023.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 8 September 2023. This was 47 working days. This was over 4 times its stated response timeframe in its policy. Although the response acknowledged the damp and mould had been present since September 2021, it failed to offer any compensation for the effect of this on the resident. It also failed to acknowledge that its complaint response had been delayed.
The resident contacted us as she could not escalate her complaint to stage 2 as the landlord had blocked her number. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 26 February 2024. This was the same day we asked it to do so. It then responded at stage 2 on 11 April 2024. This was 32 working days outside of its response timeframe.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was unclear. Instead of providing the dates of damp and mould works it said “on x” or “by x” on a number of occasions. This gave the impression that part of the response was a template as it failed to contain the dates specific to the resident’s case.
Within its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged there had been delays in both its complaint responses. It apologised for this. It offered a total of £200 for all of the failures identified. It is not clear what amount it had given for its delayed complaint handling.
The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. The resident had to involve us at both stages for the landlord to respond. Its responses were delayed and contained incomplete information. As such, there was maladministration in its complaint handling. To acknowledge the effect on the resident we have ordered £200. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected a resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of electrical works in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
1. A member of the landlord’s executive team is to apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £2,000 compensation to the resident. This amount includes the landlord’s previous offer of £300 compensation. The landlord can deduct this amount if it can provide evidence this has already been paid. The compensation is made up as follows:
  1. £1,500 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £300 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in its handling of electrical works in the property.
  3. £200 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handing failures.
Confirm in writing to the resident and us whether works to the electrics in the property have been completed. This should set out what work was completed and the date of the work. If such work is outstanding, it should provide an action plan, complete with a schedule of works setting out the date for work to be completed. The action plan must be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Any necessary works must commence no later than 8 weeks from the date of this report.