Hyde Housing Association Limited (202417115)

Decision
Case ID	202417115
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	27 November 2025

Background

1. In early 2023, the resident reported a damp and mould problem affecting a bedroom wall. In response, the landlord advised it was caused by his furniture being against the wall. The resident later submitted findings of a builder showing there was a problem with the external brickwork. While the landlord took steps to remedy the problem, the resident remains unhappy with the time taken by the landlord to respond and the amount of compensation that was awarded.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the damp and mould problem.
   2. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that the landlord took reasonable actions to remedy the impact in relation to both complaints. As such, we have made no orders.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord:
   1. Acknowledged its delay in handling the repairs and the complaint.
   2. Recognised and awarded reasonable compensation for the different ways the resident was affected, in line with its policy.
   3. Invited the resident to evidence his financial losses and paid an estimated amount based on what was provided.

 

 

 

 

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already, the landlord should pay the resident the £1250 compensation it awarded because this was one of the reasons we made a finding that it had reasonably put right the impact of its failings.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 May 2024	The resident complained the damp and mould problem was due to problems with the brickwork. He sent a report from an independent builder as evidence. The resident said he was concerned for his health because of the mould and asked the landlord to act.
5 June 2024	In the stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged it had delayed addressing the problem. It confirmed appointments for repairs to the roof (30 May) and to install airbricks (11 June). It also recognised the inconvenience the resident had been caused was “significant”, apologised and awarded £250 compensation. The landlord also said it now had an in-house repairs team to better manage service delivery and staff had been given training about getting things right the first time.
9 July 2024	The resident asked to be compensated for damaged belongings, costs of cleaning the damp and mould, and his time and trouble incurred since January 2023.
Between mid-July and early August 2024	The resident sent several emails because he received no reply to his query. The landlord responded in early August 2024 apologising about the situation, asked for photographs of his damaged items, and an estimate of the costs he was seeking. The resident sent some photographs, including some children’s books he had been gifted, but gave no estimated costs.
28 August 2024	In the stage 2 review request, the landlord acknowledged it had not completed repairs on time and did not communicate with him well. It confirmed when scaffolding which was blocking the resident’s carpark space would be removed (30 August) and when internal repairs in his flat (including replacing an area of damaged carpet and skirting boards) would be started (2 September). The landlord also increased its compensation offer to £850, which it said was made up of: £50 for patience during the complaints process. £100 for effort. £200 for its delays. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused. £250 contribution towards damaged items. £50 towards expenses.
After the complaints process ended	The resident reported further problems with the internal and external repairs, including holes in the external wall. He sent a photograph of some mouldy shoes and said he was seeking £4000 compensation, although how this figure was arrived at was unconfirmed. The landlord increased its award by a further £400 (making it £1250 in total).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate his complaint because he believes the amount of compensation is insufficient. He advised that he had been caused inconvenience and financial loss from having to clean the mould, pursue the landlord about the matter, be available for appointments, and damaged belongings.

 

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	Response to damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

5. The landlord provided a fair response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs, in which it recognised its mistakes and proposed resolutions. Within its responses it:
   1. Apologised for the delay caused by its initial response to the resident’s report of the problem and then appropriately arranged to complete the repairs, both externally and to the bedroom. This included mould treatments which may have helped alleviate the situation for the resident.
   2. Apologised that both timescales given in the stage 1 for repairs were exceeded, which records show was by as much as 2 months for the roof repair.
   3. Recognised the resident had been caused substantial inconvenience and awarded compensation for the cumulative impacts of the delays, including £500 in total for non-financial losses. This was in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy which allows for payments for different impacts and failings, including delays. It is also within the range our guidance on remedies suggests of between £100 and £600 where failings have impacted the resident but is not expected to be lasting.
   4. Gave the resident the opportunity to provide evidence of and an estimate of his financial losses and then awarded a payment (£300). It was in line with its approach set out in the compensation policy for cases where there is evidence its failings have caused or contributed to damage or financial losses. The offer appeared reasonable based on the evidence available to it and in the absence of any estimates from the resident.
6. Where a landlord commits to undertaking repairs within a certain time, it would be reasonable for it to meet this. Or to provide sound reasons and evidence of them for not being able to. In this case, some of the internal repairs were delayed by almost 2 months. This was partly because the landlord found a leak coming from the resident’s bathroom so had to put work on hold. However, this only accounted for a week. Records show much of the delay was due to the landlord not rescheduling the repairs in a timely manner, which was inappropriate.
7. As such, there were further avoidable delays caused by the landlord and further inconvenience to the resident, who we have seen chased the repairs up several times. It was therefore appropriate for it to award further compensation. The resident asked for £4000 but did not explain how he arrived at this figure. Although not noted in the records we have seen, the resident told us that the landlord asked for evidence of his losses but he was unable to provide this. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask for evidence of the losses which the resident was seeking reimbursement for. Had it signposted him to make a claim under his or its insurance, such evidence would have also been requested for the claim to be considered in full. While it was unclear how the landlord arrived at the additional £400 it awarded, this amount was a reasonable reflection of the further evidenced impacts that the resident was caused.
8. Considering the above, we are satisfied the landlord took reasonable actions to remedy the impact on the resident based on the available evidence.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

9. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code required it to issue its stage 1 response to the complaint within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days. Both timeframes are calculated from the date of its acknowledgement of receipt, which was to be sent within 5 working days. The landlord met its stage 1 deadline but surpassed its stage 2 by 10 working days. This was largely due to the fact it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint or acknowledge his emails which led to him chasing matters up. Appropriately the landlord acknowledged this and awarded £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused, which was in line with its compensation policy and our guidance on remedies for impacts that are short-lived.
10. As explained above, the landlord made some reasonable attempts to consider the resident’s request to be compensated for his damaged belongings. It could though still reasonably have given him the option to make a claim under his or its insurance cover. While it is a shortfall that it did not do this, ultimately its actions were appropriate and in line with its approach where there is evidence its service failings has caused or contributed to damage of personal belongings.
11. We find the landlord appropriately remedied its complaint handling failing.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

12. The repair records provided were detailed and showed a clear audit of what happened and when. However, in response to our request for evidence the landlord only provided records from when the resident complained. This did not though affect our ability to investigate this complaint because the landlord did not dispute the resident’s account that it had not satisfactorily investigated his initial report. However, we expect landlords to send us full and relevant records that we ask for. It may wish to consider this matter to establish if the records were not sent because they were not available or it simply did not send them.

Communication

13. The tone of the landlord’s responses was sensitive and acknowledged how the resident said he had been affected, including that some items that were damaged were sentimental. There were, however, occasions highlighted above that his emails to its shared inbox were not responded to within a reasonable time or, in some cases, at all. The landlord may consider if there is learning it can take to help avoid this from reoccurring.