Hyde Housing Association Limited (202408862)

Decision
Case ID	202408862
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	16 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for a replacement bathroom.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement bathroom.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Request for a replacement bathroom

4. There was a breakdown in communication from the landlord to the resident regarding the scope of the proposed works. The landlord did not appropriately address the resident’s concerns about damp, mould and related health concerns, or consider potential hazards. It is also unclear whether it considered the Decent Homes Standard when assessing the condition of the bathroom.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not complete a thorough investigation of the resident’s complaint, and its responses lacked clarity and sufficient detail. 

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 senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 13 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows: £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of a request for a replacement bathroom. £100 for the complaint handling failures identified. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 13 November 2025
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the bathroom, including for any evidence of damp and mould and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The condition of the bathroom and the most likely cause of any damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. Whether repairs or replacement are required (if applicable) with a clear explanation of its decision-making process. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 27 November 2025

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm the date of the last bathroom replacement and to provide an update on when it is scheduled for renewal under its stock investment programme.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
February 2024 to April 2024	The resident reported concerns to the landlord regarding the condition of his bathroom.
1 May 2024	The resident raised his complaint. He said his bathroom was in “really bad shape” and he felt a full replacement was necessary rather than repairing the existing one.
10 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint on the basis that it had been unable to find any failures in its service. It said the surveyor had not approved a replacement and it would only carry out repairs to the bathroom.
13 May 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he remained dissatisfied as the surveyor had given him the impression that the bathroom would be replaced. He stated the bathroom was “impregnated” with black mould which he felt was posing a risk to his health.
20 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint as it said the resident had not provided any new information to consider. It said it would not be changing its decision.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as he said the landlord had only agreed to do “very basic cosmetic repairs” even though his bathroom was in a poor condition.
13 October 2025	During contact with us, the resident said the condition of the bathroom was continuing to deteriorate. As an outcome, he said he would like the mould to be treated and a full bathroom replacement.

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 request for a replacement bathroom
Finding	Maladministration

6. The resident raised concerns about the condition of his bathroom on 23 February 2024, reporting cracked and damaged bathroom wall tiles. The landlord appropriately inspected the bathroom on 18 March 2024. This was within its 20-working–day routine repair timescale. During the inspection, it was identified that further works were required, including replacing the lay board and tiles, renewing the bath panel, resecuring the toilet, replacing sealant around the bath and basin, renewing the extractor fan, and patching damaged plasterwork.
7. The works were initially scheduled for 16 April 2024, in line with the landlord’s 20-working-day timescale. They were later rescheduled to 29 April 2024 at the resident’s request. When the landlord attended on the revised date, the resident refused the works, stating that the work description did not match what had been agreed with the surveyor. He said he had been led to believe a new bathroom would be fitted.
8. Although a survey report was provided, it only listed the required repairs and did not include any notes or records of the surveyor’s discussion with the resident. As a result, it’s unclear what was discussed between the 2 parties. However, there was a clear difference between what the resident expected and what the landlord planned to do, which suggests there was a communication issue. This likely caused the resident some frustration.  
9. The landlord maintained its decision not to replace the resident’s bathroom in both of its complaint responses, stating it was not beyond economical repair. While the resident disagreed with this, the landlord has the right to assess its properties and decide whether to replace or repair items. The landlord’s stock investment delivery procedure does not state how often bathrooms should be replaced, but it does include “component renewal criteria”. This states that if 2 or fewer sanitary items need replacing, the work should be done as a repair. Based on this, the landlord’s decision to carry out repairs instead of a full replacement was in line with its policy.
10. It is unclear when the bathroom was last replaced. The resident told us he had lived in the property since 2012 and the bathroom had not been replaced during that time. According to the Decent Homes Standard, the landlord must provide reasonably modern facilities, which includes bathrooms that are no more than 30 years old. The landlord’s complaint responses did not make it clear whether this standard was considered when reviewing the resident’s request for a bathroom replacement (assessed below as part of the landlord’s complaint handling). A recommendation has been made in relation to this.
11. The resident reported black mould in the bathroom in his escalation request on 13 May 2024. However, in its stage 2 response on 20 May 2024, the landlord did not acknowledge this, which was not appropriate. Damp and mould are potential hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and should be treated with urgency due to the potential health impact. The landlord should have addressed the resident’s concerns and advised what action it intended to take in line with its policies and procedures. By not doing so, it did not demonstrate that it had considered its responsibilities under HHSRS, which is a failing.
12. The resident told us he had been having respiratory problems which he believed were caused by the black mould. The landlord was initially made aware of these health concerns in the resident’s escalation request, but did not acknowledge them in its stage 2 response. While we are not medical specialists and cannot determine impact on health, we can consider the impact of any failings by the landlord, including any distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord should have recognised and responded to the resident’s concerns. Its failure to do so was unreasonable and left the resident living with unresolved damp and mould, causing him distress and inconvenience.
13. The landlord’s compensation procedure sets out “compensation tariffs” which calculate awards by the detriment or impact to residents. It categorises these into low, medium, and major impact for both “delay and distress” and “distress and inconvenience”. It offers varying payments of up to £500 dependent on these categories.
14. The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaint investigation, and as a result, did not offer any compensation as part of its complaint responses. We consider a payment of £250 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation procedure and our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures that adversely affected the resident, that the landlord has not acknowledged or put right.
15. After the complaints process ended on 20 May 2024, the landlord offered to carry out the bathroom repairs again in November 2024 and April 2025. The resident is understood to have declined the works on both occasions. During contact with us in October 2025, the resident reported ongoing issues with the bathroom, including damp and mould, and requested a full replacement. While it is not within our remit to determine whether a replacement is necessary, an order has been made in relation to this matter.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

16. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in April 2024.
17. The timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy were consistent with the requirements of the Code. The landlord adhered to these timescales, but there were other failures.
18. The landlord’s final response showed a lack of thorough investigation. The resident raised concerns in his escalation request that the landlord’s stage 1 response did not “match” with what the surveyor had told him. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of internal correspondence with the surveyor. Given the inconsistencies, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the matter further. It apparently did not do this, which was a failing.
19. Under the Code, landlords are expected to provide clear reasons for their decisions, referencing relevant policies, legislation and good practice where applicable. In its final response, the landlord maintained its decision not to replace the resident’s bathroom. However, it did not clearly explain how it had reached that decision, nor did it provide information on when the bathroom was last replaced or when it was next scheduled for renewal. Instead, it apparently used standard wording that was not specific to the complaint. This made the landlord’s reasoning unclear, which did not meet the requirements of the Code. This likely also caused the resident some uncertainty.
20. The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide any specific details of the awards it will make in the event of a failure in complaint handling. We consider a payment of £100 to be appropriate. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right.
21. The Ombudsman has investigated other complaints and issued a special report about the landlord in December 2024, which identified similar complaint handling failings. A number of orders and recommendations were made as part of this report, including the need to carry out staff training on effective complaint handling. Therefore, we have made no further recommendations for training that would duplicate the ongoing work arising from the special investigation.

Learning

22. The landlord should ensure it conducts thorough investigations when handling complaints and keeps clear records of its findings. Complaint responses should address all aspects of the complaint, providing clear and detailed explanations supported by relevant policies, legislation, and good practice where applicable.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

23. The surveyor’s report lacked detail and did not clearly explain its findings beyond listing the required repairs. There was also no record of what was discussed with the resident during the visit, which was a key aspect of this investigation. The landlord should have systems in place to accurately record all communication with residents, including notes from phone calls and home visits.
24. The landlord did not record the resident’s reports of damp and mould raised in his escalation request, indicating a record keeping issue. When asked, the landlord stated it had no record of any damp issues in the property. These reports should have been documented and addressed in line with the landlord’s policies and procedures.

Communication

25. There appeared to be a communication issue from the landlord to the resident, with there being a discrepancy between the resident’s expectations and the landlord’s proposed work to the bathroom. This highlights the need for the landlord to improve how it communicates decisions to residents, ensuring it explains clearly to avoid confusion or distress.