Hyde Housing Association Limited (202348294)

Decision
Case ID	202348294
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 March 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with her son in a ground floor flat. The landlord was aware during the complaints process that the resident is asthmatic. The resident reported leaks, damp and mould issues from May 2023 in the property. This included leaking water through windows, a leak from a leasehold flat above through the ceiling, poor insulation, crumbly flooring and holes in the property. She told the landlord during the complaints process that this damaged her carpet, and she had to replace her son’s bed.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould causing damage to belongings and associated repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould causing damage to belongings and associated repairs.
4. There was service failure for the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord unreasonably delayed the repairs to fix leaks, damp and mould in the property and to complete the associated repairs. This was not in line with its repairing obligations or its repairs policy timescale. The landlord recognised these delays in its complaint responses offering some compensation. However, this does not fully recognises the impact of the delays, and poor communication on the resident. We have not seen that the landlord completed a risk assessment considering the resident’s vulnerabilities that could be exacerbated by damp and mould issues. The landlord’s failure to provide a lasting remedy to the leaks, damp and mould issues led to our maladministration finding.
6. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failings at both complaint stages. This included the delays, poor communication and poor follow up as it failed keep the commitments it made at stage 1. It said it was putting actions in place to improve its repairs service and had fed back to internal teams. However, it did not specify what actions it had taken to prevent the same failings from occurring.
7. The landlord’s complaint handling was delayed, primarily at stage 2 with a delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It also failed to answer one of the complaint issues concerning the resident’s report of damage to belongings in its complaint responses. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Code. These issues led to our service failure finding.

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 leader, 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 15 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay £1,200 made up of as follows: £1,100 (inclusive of the landlord’s offer of £550) for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould causing damage to belongings and associated repairs. This recognises the delays in the landlord finding a lasting solution, along with the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. £100 for the landlord’s response to the associated complaint for the delayed complaint handling and failure to respond to a complaint issue. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 April 2026
3	Inspection follow up order The landlord must provide us and the resident with its written summary following its inspection of 26 February 2026. This must include any schedule of works along with anticipated completion dates (or completion dates where repairs have been completed as a result).	No later than 15 April 2026
4	Senior management review The landlord must complete a senior management review of this case to identify why the failings have occurred and to consider learning that can be used to prevent similar failings from happening. The landlord must send a copy of its review outcomes and action plan to the resident and to us within this timeframe.	No later than 29 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to provide advice on her housing options.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
May 2023 – 4 January 2024	The resident reported leaks, damp and mould issues in the property. She said that the insulation was rotten, the ceiling needed repair, along with her son’s bedroom window which she said was leaking. She said she had rotting concrete issues. She said she was having to replace furniture due to the issues.
19 April 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had a leak coming through the kitchen ceiling and was concerned about possible asbestos. She said that the landlord kept rearranging appointments or that its contractors would fail to attend. She said that holes were appearing in the concrete weekly and the poor insulation issue was causing mould that she cleaned off daily. She said she was asthmatic and the mould was impacting on her asthma as well as her mental health.
14 May 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the outstanding repairs. It agreed that the repairs should have been completed sooner and it upheld the complaint. It offered £300 in compensation comprising £100 for the resident’s effort, £100 for the delays in completing repairs and £100 for the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident. It said 3 windows were repaired on 8 May 2024, a new extractor fan and a heater was fitted on 10 May 2024. It said it would repair the kitchen and bathroom ceiling on 16 May 2024. Its surveyor and supervisor would attend the property on 17 May 2024 to inspect the flooring and to take corrective action.
14 May 2024	The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and said there were outstanding issues. She requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2.
7 June 2024	The landlord issued its final complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint saying it should not have taken so long to complete repairs. It acknowledged its poor communication and a failure to reassure the resident when it would fix the leak. It said it had booked outstanding repairs to the windows, and an asbestos survey had been booked for 12 June 2024. It would also survey the plastering required to the entrance lobby and inspect a hole in the bedroom on 12 June 2024. It would complete repairs to the cavity tray to the window as it felt this could cause issues on 26 June 2024. It advised that it needed to complete a S20 consultation as there were leaseholders in the block who would be expected to contribute for the costs of wall insulation. It offered increased compensation of £550 comprising £150 for customer effort, £200 for the delays in completing the repairs and £200 for the distress and inconvenience that this caused to the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her case to us on 12 July 2024. As a remedy she requested increased compensation and for the landlord to rehouse her.

 

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 response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould causing damage to belongings and associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

8. The resident had a previous complaint with the landlord around April 2023. We have not seen evidence that this exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process, so we have not investigated this earlier complaint.

What we did investigate

9. We have investigated the period from May 2023 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 7 June 2024.
10. Between 19 May 2023 to 4 January 2024,the resident reported leaks through a bedroom window, along with damp and mould issues, and related repairs. Sheemailed the landlord several times during this period about the issues. We have seen no repair records from 2023, so it is unclear what actions the landlord took at this time which was inappropriate. The resident’s emails between 19 May and 3 August 2023 indicate that the landlord visited the property though and requested that the resident send some photos. It was unclear whether this was a damp and mould inspection in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy to complete an inspection on initial report. Contrary to this policy, we have seen no follow up visit within 6 months or a suitable post inspection at this time which was inappropriate.
11. The landlord’s initial repair record was from 28 February 2024 for a mould wash which was marked as cancelled as it was no longer required. It is not clear from the landlord’s records why it was no longer required. The resident told us on 19 April 2024 that the landlord did some temporary repairs to fix broken windows and had completed some surveys. We have not seen records of the surveys. She said the landlord tried to fix mouldy skirting boards without investigating why they were going mouldy and said that the landlord knew that the cavity insulation was rotten for 5 months.
12. The resident’s 19 April 2024 report of leak through the ceiling was from a leaseholder flat above. At the same time, she said that damp and mould issues were still prevalent and that this was impacting on her asthma. We cannot investigate the impact on a resident’s health as the courts would be placed to consider personal injury and have the benefit of independent medical experts. However, we can look at the overall detriment caused by a landlord’s failings. Whilst the landlord said it had contacted the leaseholder; we have seen no record of this other than its repair record saying the leaseholder was out. If the landlord was unable to contact at that point it needed to follow this up urgently, and in writing. The leaseholder would be responsible for fixing this and it was not until 7 May 2024 that the landlord said the leasehold had found and fixed the leak.
13. The resident reported damaged belongings to the landlord during the internal complaints process but we have not seen that the landlord responded to this issue which was inappropriate. The landlord could have considered providing some advice to the resident about making an insurance claim through its insurance policy, or to consider whether it would be appropriate to offer some compensation if the resident had proof of a quantifiable loss.
14. The landlord acknowledged its failings to fix the damp and mould issues in a timely manner in line with its repairs policy timescales of 20 working days for routine repairs and within 24 hours for emergency repairs.
15. The landlord found the following key themes during its complaint investigation which its records also evidence:
    1. Delays in completing the repairs – though the landlord had visited in 2023, poor follow up meant that the landlord failed to remedy the leaks, damp and mould issues and the associated repairs in a timely manner. However, the delay to fix the leak from the leasehold flat was not entirely within the landlord’s control. Repairs were ongoing during and after the internal complaints process. It completed some repairs when within the 20-working day policy timescale, but the landlord delayed raising repairs in the first place. It delayed organising the asbestos survey that the resident reported was needed in her 19 April 2024 complaint until 12 June 2024, 2 months’ later. The delays were unreasonable given the resident’s concerns about asbestos in the property.
    2. Communication issues leading to the resident’s chase ups. With multiple repair issues arising from the leaks, damp and mould issues, the landlord needed to ensure it updated the resident. The landlord appropriately recognised this failing would have caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
    3. Poor follow up – this contributed to the landlord’s failure to arrange work within a reasonable timeframe in line with its repairs policy. The landlord failed to follow up on the commitments it made at stage 1 leading to unresolved issues which it recognised at stage 2. Though it had completed some repairs by this point, there was still outstanding repairs.
16. We also found the following issues:
    1. Poor record keeping practices with gaps in the landlord’s information such as undated records provided to us for this investigation. It was not always clear whether the landlord had completed work and when. We can see that the landlord’s supervisor visited the property on 7 May 2024 and its surveyor also visited the property that week, but we have seen no report or schedule of works.
    2. Lack of risk assessment – according to the landlord’s vulnerability policy statement it needed to prioritise repairs for residents with health vulnerabilities. We have not seen evidence that the landlord risk assessed the situation which was inappropriate.
    3. Complexity –the landlord could have considered a single point of contact so it could take ownership of the outstanding repair issues, ensure follow up with the resident, internally and with its contractors. Given the number of repair issues and complexity involving a leaseholder, a Section 20 consultation and the number of repairs, this was important.
    4. Access issues – the landlord’s records evidence it had some access issues, though this was mostly after its internal complaints process, that would have hindered its ability to complete the required work. It would have been beneficial for the landlord to clarify with the resident any times to avoid ensuring a successful appointment. The resident reported to us that the landlord’s operatives attended multiple times and the landlord did not always allocate sufficient time leading to work not being fully completed. We have not seen records to confirm this, but we have noted that the landlord raised multiple repairs. We can see that the resident rearranged appointments on several occasions but mostly after the internal complaints process.
17. As the landlord does not dispute its failings, our role is to consider whether its remedy suitably puts things right for the resident in line with our dispute resolution principles mindful of the impact of the failings on the resident. The landlord offered a total of £550 comprising £150 for customer effort, £200 for the delays in completing the repairs and £200 for the distress and inconvenience that this caused to the resident. However, the Ombudsman does not consider that this suitably puts things right for the resident. The leaks, damp and mould issues and associated repairs have been recurring since at least May 2023.
18. Following the end of the internal complaints process, the resident told us on 11 February 2026 that damp and mould had returned in areas that the landlord had previously repaired. We notified the landlord on 13 February 2026 that there could be a material change in respect of Awaab’s Law. The landlord advised us the following day that it had organised its surveyor to inspect the property within the 10 working day timescale for significant hazards under Awaab’s Law on 26 February 2026. However, the resident’s continued reports evidenced that the landlord has not found a lasting solution to the recurrent damp and mould issues. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration for its response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould causing damage to belongings and associated repairs.
19. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £550 in compensation comprising £300 for the continued delays in completing the repairs up to the determination date, and £250 for the detriment that the landlord’s failings had on the resident. This recognises the additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in finding a lasting remedy to the damp and mould issues and the associated repairs. It also recognises the aggravating factors due the resident’s vulnerabilities. This gives a total order of compensation of £1,100.
20. As the landlord had already arranged an inspection, we have ordered the landlord to provide a copy of its written summary outlining any schedule of works along with anticipated completion timescales (if repairs have not already been completed).
21. We have ordered the landlord to complete a senior management review to identify why the failings occurred and to provide its action plan to prevent similar failings in the future.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the associated complaint
Finding	Service failure

22. The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 19 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 April 2024 and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 May 2024. The landlord’s acknowledgement was sent 7 working days after the resident made her complaint which was 2 working days over the required timescale within the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. However, the delay was minor and would not have caused significant detriment to the resident. Its stage 1 complaint response was sent within 9 working days from its acknowledgement. This was within the 10 working days from the acknowledgement required by the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
23. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code require an acknowledgement to be sent within 5 working days. It requires a stage 1 response to be sent within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It should send a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the acknowledgement.
24. The landlord requested the landlord to escalate her complaint on 14 May 2024. It acknowledged the escalation request on 31 May 2024 which was 12 working days later after the resident chased the landlord. This again was not in line with the 5 working day timeframe in the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code which was inappropriate.
25. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 June 2024 within 5 working days from its acknowledgement which was reasonable. The landlord did not apologise for the delayed acknowledgement at stage 2 which would have been appropriate. The landlord referenced the resident’s report of damaged belongings in its stage 2 complaint response, but it did not respond to this issue. The Code requires a landlord to answer all the complaint issues, so this was inappropriate.
26. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure for its response to the associated complaint. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation. This is to recognise the delayed acknowledgements and the landlord’s failure to address a complaint issue appropriately.

Learning

27. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that it had identified some learning and was undertaking some actions to improve its repairs service. However, it did not say what the actions were. The landlord did not consider any further learning at stage 2 which would have been appropriate given there were further recognised failings. The landlord could review the recommendations within our recent Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance (May 2025).

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s records were incomplete with records provided to us without dates. This meant we were unable to confirm when the landlord had completed repairs or surveys. As set out in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025), without good knowledge and information management, a landlord cannot adequately understand its own housing stock and proactively monitor the completion of repairs. The landlord should review its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management if it has not already done so to improve its record keeping practices.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communication was more reactive to the resident’s chase ups than proactive. The landlord acknowledged its poor communication in its complaint responses, and it apologised for this which was appropriate.