Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202347343)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347343

Hyde Housing Association Limited

5 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of leaks and associated damp.
    2. Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. Her tenancy started in April 2022. It is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. In October 2022, the resident reported a blockage in her kitchen sink and a leak to her water tank. The landlord attended in October 2022 to both reports but could not complete the repair to the water tank. It completed the repair in January 2023 and installed a new boiler in April 2023. She reported further blockages to the kitchen sink in December 2022 and February 2023. She also reported toilet leaks in March 2023 and April 2023.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 6 October 2023. She said there had been multiple leaks in the property from October 2022 to May 2023. She said the leaks had caused mould and damp in the property and damage to her personal items.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 12 October 2023. In its response, it summarised the various leaks reported and works it had done. It noted an unsuccessful mould wash appointment on 29 September 2023. It confirmed a new appointment for a mould wash on 21 November 2023. It accepted it should have completed some of the repairs sooner. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and offered her £400 compensation.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 13 October 2023. She was not happy with the compensation it offered. She felt this did not cover the number of delays and the stress and inconvenience she said she experienced. She also wanted reimbursing for the items she said were damaged due to the leaks and mould.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 22 November 2023. It found no failing in its service since its stage 1 response. It said it had resolved all leaks, and it had made an appointment for a mould wash. However, it felt its original compensation offer at stage 1 was insufficient and increased it to £650. This included £150 for customer effort, £250 for delays and £250 for any distress and inconvenience. It also said it would consider reimbursement for the damaged items and asked the resident for details on this.
  7. Following its stage 2 response and on receipt of the information from the resident, the landlord offered £440 reimbursement for her damaged items. It also sent the resident a decorating voucher, offered to reimburse her the cost of cleaning the carpets and offered to replace the washing machine and asked for measurements to help it do so.
  8. The resident remained unhappy and asked us to investigate. She was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered, the reoccurrence of the leaks, and the delays in repairs which resulted in damp. She said to put matters right she wanted the compensation the landlord has offered, which she has not received, plus further compensation for the stress and inconvenience. She also wants it to investigate and rectify the ongoing leaks and blockages.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. However, we can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident. If the resident wants to pursue a personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

Reports of leaks and associated damp

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure says it will attend to an emergency repair within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
  2. The resident first reported a leak from her water tank on 25 October 2022. The landlord attended on 18 November 2022 and identified an issue with the cold-water pressure. Its records say it showed it to a gas manager, and it needed a plumber. However, there is no record of the outcome of this or follow up work. This is poor record keeping. It attended again on 22 December 2022 where it temporary fixed the arm to adjust the water level and raised a new work order. We have not seen evidence to explain why this temporary repair was 42 working days after the initial report. This was not appropriate and contributed to the delays in resolving the issue.
  3. The landlord completed the repair to the water tank on 13 January 2023. This was 55 working days after the initial report and 35 working days over its repair timescale. This was not appropriate. We acknowledge that some repairs require multiple visits and works orders, as was the case here. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord updated the resident about the repair. This was poor customer service.
  4. The resident also reported her toilet was leaking. The landlord raised two emergency jobs for this on 11 March and 17 March 2023. The landlord attended both repairs within its 24-hour policy timescale and made it safe with a temporary repair. It completed the repair to the leak on 27 March 2023 which was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy. The resident reported a further leak to the toilet on 24 April 2023 which it attended and repaired on 9 May 2023. We appreciate the leaks may have been frustrating for the resident, but the landlord’s response was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy timescale.
  5. The resident also reported a leak and blockage to her kitchen sink. The landlord said it did not find any failings with its handling of the kitchen leak. It said the resident reported this in February 2022 and it dealt with it within its timescales. This is inaccurate as the date it said was prior to the resident’s tenancy. The resident first reported a kitchen sink blockage on 16 October 2022 and further blockages on 22 December 2022 and 24 February 2023. She said the blockage was causing water to flood the sink when she used the washing machine, making her washing smell. The repair records show the landlord was proactive as it responded to each report within its repairs policy timescale. However, it is not clear what work it did or recommended to prevent further blockages.
  6. The resident has complained the leaks caused damp and mould in the property. The repair records show she first reported this to the landlord on 3 February 2023 and it attended on 17 February 2023 to inspect. However, we have not seen an inspection report. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will provide advice to residents following a report of damp and mould but there is no record of this within the evidence we have seen.
  7. Following a further report of damp from the resident, the landlord arranged a mould wash for 29 September 2023. However, it said it could not complete the work as the resident did not clear and prepare the area. We have not seen evidence it told the resident of this appointment or the preparation needed for it. This was poor communication which contributed to delays in treating the mould.
  8. In accordance with the landlord’s damp and mould procedure, which says it will inspect a property within 6 months of completing repairs, the landlord arranged a property inspection on 2 October 2023. However, the resident cancelled this appointment. She has told us it rebooked and completed the property inspection, but we have not seen evidence it did or the completed inspection report. This is evidence of poor record keeping.
  9. The landlord arranged two further mould wash appointments for 14 November and 21 November 2023. It communicated this to the resident on 10 October 2023 and asked her to clear the area prior to the appointment. However, it did not attend the appointment on 14 November 2023 and did not tell the resident beforehand. This was unreasonable and as reflected in communication from the resident to the landlord, caused her time and trouble in preparing the area for the appointment.
  10. The landlord completed a mould wash on 21 November 2023 as arranged. However, this appointment was in place of the unsuccessful appointment on 29 September 2023. It is not clear why it scheduled the appointment for a date nearly 2 months after the resident reported it. This was not proactive and not in line with its self-assessment on damp and mould to ensure a timely response.
  11. The resident has sought compensation for damage to personal items from damp and mould. Where a resident feels a landlord is responsible for damage to their personal items, we expect the landlord to signpost them to its insurance team (where it has one), provide details of its liability insurer or to effectively deal with the damage through its internal complaints process. The landlord’s compensation policy says in such circumstances it will direct the resident to its insurance policy. In this case, we have not seen evidence it told her how to make a claim with its insurers. However, it offered compensation for damages through its complaints process which was fair in the circumstances.
  12. There were failings in the landlords handling of leaks and associated damp. However, it recognised this in its complaint responses and took steps to put things right. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord accepted it should have completed repairs sooner. It identified delays in resolving the water tank leak and boiler issues and offered £400 compensation. In its stage 2 complaint response it increased its offer to £650. This was proportionate to the failings it identified. This was in line with its compensation policy where it repeatedly failed and its service was below the required standard. Its offer is also in line with our remedies guidance for where there has been a significant impact on the resident. In view of this, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its failures in the handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damp.
  13. The landlord also offered to reimburse the cost of having the carpets cleaned and it replaced the washing machine. That was reasonable. It offered the resident £440 for her damaged personal belongings. We recommend that the landlord provide the resident with details of how to make a claim to its liability insurer if she is dissatisfied with the amount offered. The insurer can decide on whether the landlord has acted negligently and, if appropriate, the amount that should be paid to the resident. The liability insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s decision or the claims process, aside from passing on the details of how to claim to the resident.
  14. The resident told us the landlord has not paid her the compensation it offered due to the time elapsed since its offer. It does not have time constraints on its compensation offer in its compensation policy nor on the acceptance form. We have therefore made a recommendation below for it to pay the compensation directly to the resident.
  15. The resident has also told us she is still experiencing leaks and blockages to her kitchen and bathroom sink. In view of this, we have made a recommendation for it to trace and rectify this matter. We further recommend it writes to the resident with the outcome of that survey along with timescales to undertake any recommended work.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of its formal acknowledgment. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request.
  2. The landlord provided the resident its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. This was appropriate and in accordance with its policy.
  3. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 13 October 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 25 October 2023. This delay was unreasonable and not in line with its complaints policy.
  4. In its stage 2 acknowledgment dated 25 October 2023, the landlord said it will respond by 22 November 2023, which it did. However, its response was 27 working days after the resident’s escalation request and not in line with its complaints policy. It was also not in line with paragraph 5.13 of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) in use at the time. This says landlords must respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
  5. In view of the above delay with the landlord’s stage 2 response and its failure to acknowledge this in its complaint response, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance where we have found service failures that have caused time and trouble to a resident over a short duration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its failures in handling the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damp.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord takes the following action:
    1. Contacts the resident for details of the cost of any carpet cleaning she has paid for and reimburses her.
    2. Pays the resident the £1,090 (£650 compensation and £440 for damaged belongings) it offered her as part of its internal complaint’s procedure. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid. This sum should be paid to her direct and not offset against arrears where they exist.
    3. Provides the resident with details of how to make a claim to its liability insurer if she is dissatisfied with the amount offered for damaged belongings.
    4. Arranges an independent drainage and pipework survey of the resident’s property and communal building to trace and rectify the repeated issues with the sink blockages. We further recommend it writes to the resident with the outcome of that survey along with timescales to undertake any recommended work.