From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202418882)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418882

Hyde Housing Association Limited

4 August 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 resident’s reports of water ingress, damp and mould, and associated outstanding repairs.
  2. This report has also assessed the landlord’s:
    1. complaint handling.
    2. record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom, ground floor flat that the landlord, which is a housing association, owns and manages. The landlord let the property to the resident under an assured tenancy agreement in October 1998.
  2. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 12 December 2023. It is suggested that this was prompted by a report the resident had made on 8 August 2023 regarding the condition of her home. It is unclear what action the landlord took following the inspection. However, the evidence suggests the surveyor had identified a roof leak and some internal repairs.
  3. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 19 April 2024 about damp and mould in the property, a leak and a number of outstanding repairs. She said she was unable to use “half of her property” and that the length of time the landlord was taking to address the repairs was “unfair”.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 April 2024 and replied to the resident on 10 May 2024. It accepted that completing the repairs had been a “long, drawn out process” and apologised for the distress and inconvenience this had caused. It offered her £450 compensation in recognition of the delays and added that it would:
    1. start the roofing works on 15 May 2024.
    2. carry out electrical works in the kitchen and bathroom by 10 June 2024.
    3. complete the remaining works by 17 June 2024.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 20 May 2024. She said that she wanted it to review its offer of compensation because:
    1. she had not been able to use part of her property for over 12 months.
    2. the damp had spread to her soft furnishings, which she would have to replace.
    3. she had been trying to reach the contractor and repairs team but had not heard back from them.
    4. there was evidence the leak from the property above had still not been resolved.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 28 June 2024 and sent a final response to the resident on 17 July 2024. It listed all the repairs the resident had complained about. It then stated that:
    1. on 10 June 2024 it had:
      1. installed a new extractor fan in the kitchen.
      2. moved the cooker socket behind the oven.
      3. repaired the kitchen light.
    2. it would start to complete the remaining works on 29 July 2024, which would take around 10 days.
    3. it accepted its communication was poor and that the resident had taken unnecessary time and trouble contacting it to progress the repairs.
    4. it would offer her £100 to reimburse her for a damaged footstool.
    5. it had made some improvements to its service following her complaint including:
      1. a new customer relationship management (CRM) system, allowing it to track its complaint investigations and communicate with residents.
      2. an online customer portal, enabling residents to report and track repairs.
      3. a complaints commitment officer who would act as a point of contact to oversee its commitments through to completion.
    6. it apologised for the “added delays and inconvenience “this had caused and made an increased offer of £700 compensation in recognition of this.
  7. On 9 September 2024 the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She explained that she had not received any further contact from the landlord, and the repairs remained outstanding. She added that there was water ingress from the property above, which had caused her living room walls and furniture to become covered in mould, and the ceiling in her hallway to fall through.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident states that she had been reporting an ongoing leak from the property above hers for 10 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because, over time, evidence may be unavailable, and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, we have used our discretion to focus on the period from August 2023 onwards. The records indicate that this was the beginning of the recent events that led to the resident raising a formal complaint.

Legal and policy framework

  1. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Act 2004 to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties, informed by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord needs to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is “fit for human habitation”. In line with section 10 of the same act, this also includes ventilation.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy lists 3 categories of repair. The landlord attends to:
    1. emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe within 24 hours.
    2. routine repairs within 20 working days.
    3. major repairs as per its stock investment policy.
  3. In addition to policy timescales, the landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
  4. The landlord’s customer care and complaints policy sets out a 2 stage formal complaints process. This states that it will:
    1. acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days.
    2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
    3. respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  5. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that, any extension to the above timescales must be no more than 10 (stage 1) or 20 (stage 2) working days without good reason. The landlord must clearly explain the reason for the delay to the resident and provide them with the contact details of the Ombudsman.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy awards discretionary compensation payments of:
    1. £250 to £1,000 for delays depending on the degree of impact on the resident.
    2. £250 to £1,000 for distress and inconvenience.
    3. up to £250 for time and trouble.
    4. £50 to £400 for poor complaint handling.

Water ingress, damp and mould, and associated outstanding repairs

  1. In response to our request for evidence, the landlord has provided limited records. Its repair logs do not give any details of when repairs were completed. We have not been provided with any inspection reports for the period covered by the complaint. Furthermore, there are limited communication logs between the landlord and resident, or the landlord and its contractor. It is unknown whether this evidence does exist and if the landlord has failed to provide it, or if it failed to keep appropriate records. It has therefore been difficult for us to establish what steps the landlord took to address the resident’s reports. We have assessed the landlord’s record keeping later in this report.
  2. The landlord’s repair logs do not show when the resident first reported a leak from the property above. However, the landlord states in correspondence from 22 May 2024 that she had first reported the issue on 8 August 2023. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had carried out an inspection on 12 December 2023. It added that it had “responded promptly to the initial problem but then failed to follow up by fixing” the leak. It is unclear why it took the landlord 4 months to inspect the property following the resident’s report. It has provided no explanation for the significant and unreasonable delay.
  3. The landlord has not given any details of what actions it took following the inspection, or what the “initial problem” was. However, it accepted that it had failed to carry out follow up repairs to fix the leak. The internal communication records suggest that the landlord resolved the leak on 16 July 2024. However, a survey the landlord carried out on 25 July 2024, after conclusion of the complaint process, found that the leak was still present.
  4. Internal communication records suggest that the landlord had experienced difficulties accessing the property above to carry out the repair. However, it was not until 10 July 2024 that records show it had considered enforcement action to gain access to the neighbouring property. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord made any contact with the resident between 12 December 2023 and 16 July 2024 regarding the leak. There is no indication it made any attempt to provide her with updates on the progress of the repair. This was evidence of poor engagement with the resident that would have caused her uncertainty.
  5. The evidence provided does not demonstrate that the landlord took appropriate action to ensure any necessary inspections and repairs were completed in a timely manner. It took over 11 months to take enforcement action to access the property above. This was excessive, and a significant departure from its repairs policy. Furthermore, the landlord could not demonstrate that the delays were unavoidable. This would have left the resident with the impact of an ongoing leak for longer than necessary and caused her distress and inconvenience as a result.
  6. The landlord’s complaint responses do not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily explain why the leak remained unresolved over 11 months after the resident had reported it. The landlord was therefore unable to demonstrate it had taken appropriate and timely action to gain access to the neighbouring property and then complete a repair. This was a failure that contributed significantly to the delays experienced by the resident.
  7. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it had undertaken any further inspections of the leak after December 2023. It is therefore unclear during the period covered by the complaint if and when contractors had attended to assess the leak or made any findings or recommendations.
  8. There is no indication the landlord took any steps to mitigate the damage and impact caused by the leak or that it had kept the resident updated during this period. Clear communication about the delays and the reasons for them at the time may have alleviated some of the inconvenience caused to her. The landlord’s poor communication would have likely aggravated the distress she was experiencing from the impacts of the ongoing leak.
  9. In her stage 1 complaint on 19 April 2024 the resident reported that damp and mould was visible all over her property. She stated that a footstool and the carpet in her living room had started to mould. The records suggest that the landlord inspected the property on 13 and 20 June 2024. However, we do not have any details about the purpose of those inspections. As mentioned, the landlord did not provide any inspection reports for the period covered by the complaint. We were therefore unable to establish the condition of the property around the time the resident made her complaint.
  10. However, as previously mentioned, the landlord did provide an inspection report for a survey it carried out on 25 July 2024, shortly after conclusion of the complaint process. The report stated that there was internal damp and mould caused by damaged and leaking guttering, and an ongoing leak from the property above. In addition, there was black mould, which required cleaning. This was supported by photographic evidence.
  11. In line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on ‘Damp and Mould’ (October 2021), we expect landlords to take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and ensure their responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the situation. The landlord should communicate effectively, share the outcome of surveys and act on recommendations by surveyors in a timely manner.
  12. The same spotlight report recommends that landlords should implement a risk-based approach with respect to damp and mould. There is no evidence the landlord had carried out any kind of risk assessment to establish the extensiveness and seriousness of the damp and mould. The landlord should be able demonstrate that it has reasonably considered the risks of damp and mould to residents and properties at an early stage. This would help it promptly determine the urgency of any necessary repairs.
  13. Due to its poor record keeping, the landlord has not demonstrated that it assessed the impact of the conditions on the resident to inform its repair approach. This was a missed opportunity to consider what it could do to mitigate the distress and inconvenience of this on the resident while it sought to make a lasting and effective repair.
  14. Our spotlight report states that landlords should ensure that, “where significant works are required, smaller remedial works such as mould washes/anti-mould paint that will improve the resident’s living environment are still completed”. It has not provided any evidence it took any steps to offer “an alternative interim solution or advice and support to limit the impact” of the damp and mould. This was a failing.
  15. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident reported a number of outstanding repairs. These included a:
    1. crack across a chimney breast.
    2. “large hole” at the front of the property where the drain went into the gutter.
    3. broken kitchen light.
    4. kitchen sink that was not draining properly.
    5. cooker plug that needed moving so the cooker could be flush with the wall.
    6. bathroom extractor fan missing a flue.
    7. broken roof gutter.
    8. broken back garden fence that needed replacing.
  16. The records suggest that the landlord fitted a new extractor fan, moved the cooker socket and repaired the kitchen light on 10 June 2024. It took the landlord 34 working days to complete those repairs. Furthermore, it gave the resident a commitment in its stage 1 response to complete the remaining repairs by 17 June 2024. It then stated in its stage 2 response that it would start those works on 19 July 2024, and that it would take about 10 days to complete.
  17. The evidence shows the landlord did not complete the remaining repairs until 5 November 2024. This was 140 working days after the resident had first reported the repairs, and nearly 5 months after it had committed in its stage 1 response to completing them. This was a significant failing.
  18. The Code requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion. The excessive delays represent a significant departure from its repairs policy which commits to completing routine repairs within 20 working days. It failed to ensure it completed the repairs by 17 June 2024, as per its complaint response. This also represents a departure from the Code. The landlord gave the resident no reason for the delays. Therefore we could not be satisfied it engaged with the resident about these or that they were unavoidable.
  19. Landlords ought to reasonably give details and timescales for any actions they plan to take. Furthermore, they ought to keep residents regularly updated and informed. Such action is recommended in our guidance to landlords for repairs complaints, and the Code. There is evidence the resident had to make significant efforts to try and progress the outstanding repairs, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations.
  20. There is no evidence of effective contract monitoring by the landlord to ensure its contractors were providing a service that was in line with its repairs policy for completing repairs. We accept that contractors might not be available due to capacity issues or busy periods, and when their services are in high demand. However, the landlord’s contractors are accountable to its service agreement to enable it to complete repairs within a reasonable time.
  21. Landlords should ensure its contractors make reasonable efforts to contact residents to provide updates. There are no records to show that contractors were communicating regularly and effectively with the resident, or that the landlord was taking adequate steps to chase them up. This was a missed opportunity to document the steps it was taking to progress the repair.
  22. The landlord’s inability to demonstrate effective repair management meant that it failed to ensure it was proactively managing its approach to addressing the leak, the damp and mould, and the outstanding repairs. Furthermore, there are no records to show the landlord considered appointing a specific team to take overall responsibility for co-ordinating the repairs. This would have contributed to its overall failure in responding to the resident’s reports, and the subsequent excessive delays in completing the necessary works.
  23. We note that, on 22 May 2024, the landlord appropriately gave the resident details on how she could claim for damaged possessions through its insurer.

Conclusion

  1. Based on the evidence, we consider the landlord failed to:
    1. carry out inspections or complete repairs within a reasonable amount of time, in line with its obligations.
    2. appropriately respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    3. adequately communicate with the resident to provide updates or respond to her enquiries.
    4. complete an effective and lasing repair to resolve a leak in a timely manner.
    5. track the outstanding repairs or monitor its contractors to ensure they were progressing them and making reasonable contact with the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. We apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  3. In its stage 2 response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged its lack of urgency in addressing the outstanding repairs and its poor communication. It offered her £700 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, and £100 reimbursement for a damaged item of furniture. Furthermore, it provided a detailed overview of how it had learnt from the outcome of the complaint and measures it had taken to improve its services to residents.
  4. However, it did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the extent of the delays in addressing the leak and other outstanding repairs. It has not demonstrated that those delays were unavoidable. It did not acknowledge its failure to appropriately respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property. Furthermore, it had committed in its stage 2 response to complete the remaining works by 29 July 2024. Despite this, it did not complete those repairs until November 2024. We note the landlord’s attempt to put things right. However, we consider that they are not proportionate to the failures we have identified. For this reason, we have made a finding of maladministration and will order that the landlord pays further redress to the resident.
  5. The resident has stated that she was unable to use part of her property due to its condition, and the landlord’s failure to address this. There is no evidence any part of the property was uninhabitable during the period relating to the complaint. However, the outcome of the landlord’s inspection on 25 July 2024 indicates that the resident’s enjoyment of her property would likely have been adversely affected by the issues she had reported.
  6. The resident has paid approximately £495 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s failures. We can reasonably consider this to have started in August 2023, which the records show was when the resident first reported the issue. This is also the start of the period on which this investigation focused. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the landlord took to complete the outstanding repairs.
  7. Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, we consider it appropriate for the landlord to pay £1,683 compensation for the loss of enjoyment of her property for 14 months. This figure has been calculated as approximately 20% of the total rent during the period in question. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, we consider this to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.

Complaint handling

  1. The evidence shows that it took the landlord 28 working days to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. It then took a further 36 working days to issue its stage 2 response. There is no evidence it contacted the resident to explain the reason for the delay, or that it provided her with the details of the Ombudsman during this time. This is both a departure from its own complaints policy, and the Code.
  2. In its stage 2 complaint, the landlord failed to acknowledge the delays or to offer any redress. This is contrary to the landlord’s compensation policy. This states that compensation should take into account any delay in acknowledgement and the sending of a ‘holding update’ or resolution letter.
  3. The landlord’s delay in acknowledging and responding to the stage 2 complaint would likely have aggravated an already distressing situation for the resident. For this reason, we have made a finding of maladministration for complaint handling. The landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation to put things right. This is broadly in line with its own compensation policy and our Remedies Guidance.

Record keeping

  1. As referenced frequently throughout this report, the landlord’s record keeping was poor. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. It further states that a landlord’s failings to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
  2. The evidence the landlord provided to us in response to our requests for information was severely lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong. Overall, the quality of the evidence supplied by the landlord significantly hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation.
  3. The landlord’s poor record keeping would have contributed to the landlord’s poor repairs management. It would also explain its failure in responding to the resident’s reports in a timely manner and completing the required repairs within a reasonable amount of time. It would have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication and lack of updates. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. We will order the landlord to carry out a review of its record keeping for this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp and mould, and associated outstanding repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident in line with our guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
    2. pay the resident £1,933 compensation, which is calculated as follows:
      1. £1,683 in recognition of the loss of enjoyment of her property due to its poor repair management and lack of contact.
      2. £100 it offered at stage 2 to reimburse her for a damaged footstool.
      3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
    3. this replaces the offer of £700 compensation it made in its stage 2 response. If it has already paid this, and/or the £100 reimbursement, it should offset this against the total compensation we have ordered.
    4. confirm to us whether it has completed all works it listed in its stage 2 response under the heading ‘How we made our decision and what we’re doing to put things right’. If not, the landlord must write to the resident with specific dates on which it will complete each of those remaining repairs. It must send the Ombudsman a copy of its letter within the above mentioned timescale.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must review its record keeping for the issues investigated in this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with the findings of its review, details of any learning it has identified and any actions it proposes to take as a result. To assist it in doing this, it may wish to consult the recommendations in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review its complaint training to ensure that complaint handling staff contact residents whenever it expects there to be delays in issuing responses. It should also ensure it gives residents a reason for the delay and provides them with the Ombudsman’s contact details.