We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202234547)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234547

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 September 2024


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports.
    2. The landlord’s management of repairs at the property.
    3. The landlord’s handling of pest control issues.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 5 May 2003. The property in question is a 1-bed flat on the first floor of a terraced house.
  2. The landlord said that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, it is evident that throughout correspondence with the landlord, the resident did make it aware of medical conditions that are relevant when considering the reports of damp and mould in the property.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 5 February 2023 about the condition of his property. He advised that it was overcrowded with damp and mould throughout. He added that there were mice in the property and cracks in the walls. The resident explained that there was a history of these issues at the property and he had previously been decanted on several occasions while repairs were carried out.
  4. The landlord attended on 22 February 2023 and carried out an inspection of the property. It noted condensation throughout and recommended several repairs, including a review of the ventilation. The resident continued to chase the landlord about pest control and the works recommended during the inspection.
  5. This Service contacted the landlord on 3 May 2023, requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint. A stage 1 response was issued on 10 May 2023, acknowledging significant delays as the resident had been raising concerns for over 6 months. The landlord said that it had attended on 12 April 2023 but there was no access. It said that the repairs were now scheduled for 31 May 2023. It added that the pest control investigation required a second visit but the contractor had received no response from the resident.
  6. The resident chased the landlord in June 2023 for the works it had proposed in its stage 1 response. He then continued to contact it in July 2023, as it had not followed up on a previous visit. He then chased the landlord for an update on the pest control issues, as he said the contractor was awaiting permission to remove the kitchen units in order to carry out proofing works. The resident continued to chase the outstanding works in August 2023 and a stage 2 complaint was raised. The landlord failed to provide a copy of the escalation request to this Service.
  7. A stage 2 response was issued on 22 September 2023 with the complaint being partially upheld. The landlord acknowledged the overall delays with the required works and that it failed to complete those that were proposed at stage 1, indicating that these works would be completed later that month. However, the stage 2 response made no mention of the damp and mould issues that had been part of the complaints. A compensation offer of £500 was made within the letter, including £150 for complaint handling failings.
  8. Although the landlord attended the property after its stage 2 response, the resident raised further concerns around the works it had completed and said that the pest problems continued. The resident has been in contact with the landlord in 2024 about pest control issues and damp and mould in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is clear from correspondence provided by the resident that historically there have been a number of instances of issues with pests, repairs, damp and mould at the property. Some of this evidence refers to instances as far back as 2013.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this investigation will only make a determination on complaints that were brought to the landlord within 12 months of the matters arising. Therefore, we will only include reports from February 2022 onwards about the issues raised within the complaint of February 2023.
  3. Although the determination is limited to those events, historical information may be referenced for context purposes. 

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports

  1. The resident expressed significant concerns around the damp and mould in his property in his complaint on 5 February 2023, indicating that he was worried about risks posed to his family’s health. These concerns were echoed on the surveyor’s report that month as it noted that roofers had attended the property and said that the property “had one of the worst mould conditions they have seen in a long time”. They had asked that a landlord representative “visit ASAP as the tenant may need to be decanted”.
  2. The surveyor’s report indicated that there was cold bridging and evidence of condensation throughout the property. It said that there was mould staining and moisture to the wall surface with the ceiling paint having “blown” due to the “continuous condensation”. It said that this was due to “inadequate ventilation”. Despite indicating that a moisture detection instrument was used, no readings or pictures are provided within the report.
  3. Having reviewed the report provided by the landlord, the accuracy of the information provided is questionable. Having been arranged to the “mould conditions”, there are no photographs showing mould. More concerning is that a lot of the photographs provided within the report are not for the correct property. These include photographs of the incorrect building, front door, bathroom and kitchen. This is a significant service failing as any findings or works proposed following this report have potentially been based on incorrect information. This is a significant service failing, demonstrating a lack of adequate record keeping by the landlord.
  4. Regardless of the accuracy of the survey report, the landlord’s records show that the first damp and mould related works that were carried out were 3 months after the survey. The first related work carried out was a mould wash to the bedroom ceiling on 31 May 2023. This had followed a report from the resident on 10 May 2023 that his curtain rail had fallen off the wall, due to the condition of the wall, which the resident said was because of the damp. Given the issues reported by the resident and other reports about the condition of the property, these works do not seem proportionate to what would be required.
  5. Additionally, there is no evidence at this, or any other stage, of the complaint to show that a review of the ventilation in the property took place, as per the survey. This is a service failing which demonstrates a lack of urgency or oversight of the issues highlighted through the February 2023 survey. Given the health concerns that the resident had raised, this delay and lack of action could only have added to the distress and inconvenience he experienced.
  6. No further works related to damp and mould were recorded until a works order was raised on 23 August 2023. This requested mould treatment to bathroom walls and an inspection of the bedroom, bathroom and living room. Given that an inspection had already taken place 6 months prior, this calls into question the reliability of the previous report and demonstrates a lack of oversight of the damp and mould report.
  7. The inspection was recorded as completed on 26 September 2023. No further works relating to damp and mould were then raised until 21 February 2024, when the landlord raised an order to attend site due to a case review. This works order said that the landlord should be prepared to carry out a mould wash on site but was recorded as being cancelled. 
  8. Within the evidence provided by the resident, he submitted photographs of the property which show evidence of significant damp and mould, with major damage to paintwork and his windows. A contractor visit in May 2024 noted that the mould wash could not be applied to the windows as they were “rotten and damaged” and they requested the windows be replaced.
  9. It is clear from the information provided that the landlord has failed to acknowledge a significant damp and mould problem in the property for over a year. Its findings from the survey in February 2023 cannot be relied upon and even if they were accurate, it failed to do anything to treat the damp and mould outside of applying mould wash on one occasion. Further acknowledgements were made of the problem but works were not recorded as having been completed. This is a further service failing as the landlord has failed to provide adequate oversight of the damp and mould issues that continued to be reported. This added to the distress and inconvenience that the resident had made it fully aware of in his correspondence.
  10. After the resident’s report of damp and mould in February 2023, the landlord should have carried out a review, looked to identify the source of the problem and put in place a schedule of works to treat it and prevent further instances. This should have been completed in a timely manner affording the resident reasonable consideration, given the nature of his concerns. However, the landlord failed to do so and instead continued to try and treat a long running issue with applications of mould wash. The resident is seemingly still experiencing significant problems with damp and mould, despite it being over 18 months since he first raised his concerns. Given the service failings throughout this process, the Ombudsman makes a finding of severe maladministration.  

The landlord’s management of repairs at the property

  1. Within the resident’s complaint in February 2023, he raised additional concerns about cracks in the walls and a leak in the property. These will be addressed individually below for clarity:

Leak

  1. The landlord acknowledged that it identified the cause of a leak on 27 February 2023, after its second visit to the property following the complaint. However, the repairs to the shower screen and the wash hand basin were not completed until 6 June 2023 and 23 June 2023 respectively. This meant that it took the landlord almost 4 months to repair the leaks. This is significantly outside of its repair policy timeframe and must be considered a service failing.
  2. The landlord said that it attempted to attend to repair the leak on 3 occasions, once on 12 April 2023 and then on 17 May 2023 and 23 May 2023. The landlord said that it was unable to carry out the repair on these dates due to no access from the resident. It is understandable that a lack of access may delay repairs. However, with repairs such as leaks, which have the potential to cause significant damage, the landlord should be taking all reasonable steps to ensure that it attends quickly.
  3. This Service has not had sight of any records showing attempts by the landlord to attend any sooner than the visits it detailed as being no access, or any confirmation of an agreement with the resident for the dates provided. Landlords should maintain comprehensive records of bookings and scheduling of appointments as part of effective record keeping.
  4. Although there may have been no access visits, the landlord could have done more to ensure attendance sooner than it did. Had it written to the resident with an appointment and drawn attention to his requirement to allow access for works, this could have sped up the repair process. Instead, the resident had to live with these leaks, aware of the problems they continued to cause.    

Cracks in the walls

  1. Similarly to the leaks, the landlord failed to attend and repair cracks in the walls in line with its repair policy timeframe. A no access appointment on 12 April 2023 and a failed appointment on 31 May 2023 were made prior to some repairs being carried out on 28 September 2023. This means it took over 7 months for it to attend to carry out these works, as they were first raised in February 2023.
  2. It is evident that even after it attended and completed some of the repairs to the cracks in the walls, these were either not sufficient or it did not complete all of those repairs, as further visits were booked for similar works in 2024. Had it ensured that it was aware of the full extent of the required works, these could have been completed in full during the visit proposed in the stage 2 response.

Repairs Summary

  1. Ultimately, the landlord failed to attend and carry out the repairs in line with its repair policy. Although there may have been no access visits, the landlord could have done more to ensure attendance sooner than it did. Had it written to the resident with an appointment and drawn attention to his requirement to allow access for repairs, this could have sped up the repair process. Instead the resident was left chasing these repairs, which could have only added to the resident’s ongoing concerns that his requests for help were being ignored.
  2. The landlord made a compensation award of £350 in its final complaint response. This was apparently for the failings in its handling of the repairs and the pest control issues combined. This level of compensation was insufficient given the extended period of delays for the repairs (and the pest control as assessed below) and the likely impact on the resident as a result. Given the service failings throughout this process, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in its management of repairs.     

The landlord’s handling of pest control issues

  1. The landlord’s pest control policy does not provide specified timeframes for its investigation or treatment of pest control issues. However, it would be reasonable to expect that the landlord inspect and treat such issues in a timely manner.
  2. Following the resident’s complaint on 7 February 2023, it took until 25 March 2023 for an inspection to be carried out. The landlord indicated that this followed a no access visit on 2 March 2023. However, this Service has not had sight of any evidence of this visit having been arranged with the resident, or having taken place.
  3. The landlord’s pest control policy says that following its initial inspection, the contractor would provide a report detailing the cause of the problem. This should then be assessed by the landlord to decide on any further works, treatment or proofing that is required. Landlord emails from May 2023 refer to a report being made but despite this Service’s request for a copy of the report, the landlord was unable to provide this.
  4. It is clear that the landlord had not assessed that report as of 4 May 2023 given it had to request a copy from the contractor along with an update on any associated works orders. The contractor advised that it “had no communication from the tenant in order to get a second visit booked” but provided no evidence of it making any attempts to arrange such a visit with the resident. This is a service failing by the landlord, as it did not ensure receipt of the inspection report from the contractor to ensure any required works were arranged. Instead, the resident was left waiting while experiencing the distress and inconvenience caused by the mice in the property. He had made this clear to the landlord in both his complaint and a follow up email in March 2023.
  5. The next visit to the resident’s property after 25 March 2023 was not until 5 June 2023, over a month after the landlord was made aware that no follow up had taken place. This is another service failing which demonstrates a lack of urgency from the landlord to address the resident’s concerns.
  6. Another follow up visit was carried out on 23 June 2023 and, following this, the landlord said it identified that proofing works were required. Identifying access points and sealing them should have been one of the first steps taken to prevent further instances of pests in the property. It is unreasonable for this to have only been considered after 3 visits to the property.
  7. Despite identifying that proofing works were required on 23 June 2023, it is not until September 2023 that the landlord began to take steps to carry out such works at the resident’s property, neighbouring properties and the communal areas. These delays in taking basic steps in pest prevention are a further service failing by the landlord which meant that the resident was left in the same situation for over 6 months without basic prevention steps being taken.
  8. Ultimately, the landlord failed to manage the pest control issues in a timely manner as it took 7 months before it carried out proofing works at the property. Although its pest control policy does not specify timeframes for particular actions to be taken, it does outline a much more proactive approach to attendance than it showed throughout this process. Given the history of similar issues, the resident had expressed a desperation for the matter to be dealt with but the landlord failed to demonstrate any recognition of that urgency in its management of the problem.
  9. The landlord made a compensation award of £350 in its final complaint response. This was apparently for the failings in its handling of the repairs and the pest control issues combined. This level of compensation was insufficient given the extended period of delays for the handling of pest control reports (and the repairs as assessed above) and the likely impact on the resident as a result. Having considered the failings in this process, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of pest control reports.     

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. It is clear that the resident’s initial complaint on 5 February 2023 was not recognised or recorded as a complaint by the landlord until after this Service contacted it on 3 May 2023. Its complaints policy says that it should formally acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and a response to the complaint should be provided within 10 working days. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint and unreasonably delayed issuing a complaint response until 10 May 2023, over 3 months after the resident first raised it.
  2. The landlord’s response said it could not uphold the stage 1 complaint as “we have not failed in the service we have provided you”. It then considered each of the points raised in the complaint and acknowledged that none of the works had been completed. In each instance, it seemingly attributed its lack of action to the resident due to a no access appointment on 12 April 2023, or the contractor not having been able to contact him.
  3. The landlord’s response did not fairly acknowledge its failings, overlooking that with better oversight of the required works, there would have been no reason for the complaint. Despite acknowledging the “long drawn out process” around the required repairs, it made no offer of compensation for the delays. Its response was contradictory in its views and failed to show any real sympathy for the resident’s situation.
  4. After proposing that it would attend on 31 May 2023 to carry out the outstanding repairs, the landlord acknowledged within its stage 2 response that this was “not completed”. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord as it did not ensure that its proposed actions were followed up on.
  5. When addressing the complaint at stage 2, the landlord’s response omitted any mention of the damp and mould issues that had been raised throughout the previous 7 months. Given the known health implications for these issues with similar concerns raised by the resident throughout his complaints, this is a significant oversight by the landlord. This points to the landlord having not contacted the resident to ensure a full understanding of the complaint and his concerns. Had it done so, it would have been in a position to provide a more comprehensive response, a plan of action to address it and a more proportionate compensation offer to the complaint.
  6. Although some actions were proposed and completed as a result of the stage 2 complaint, one of the key areas – the damp and mould – was missed. This meant that the resident was then in a position where he had to start chasing the landlord again for any resolution to that issue.
  7. Although the landlord acknowledged complaint handling failings and made a specific compensation award of £150 in recognition of this, its offer of redress was insufficient given the extended delay period and it continuing to overlook one of the substantive complaint issues.
  8. Ultimately, the landlord failed to demonstrate a desire to put things right. Its initial response did not acknowledge its failings and the landlord did not address all outstanding issues. When the complaint was escalated, it failed to investigate the complaint thoroughly which led to it missing one of the key issues. It is clear that despite the complaint process being exhausted, the resident has had to continue to chase the landlord for the same repairs. This shows that it has not learned from the complaint. The landlord’s offer of redress was insufficient given the circumstances of the case. Having considered the failings identified in this review, the Ombudsman has found there was maladministration in the handling of the resident’s complaint.  

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of pest control issues.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the chief executive or relevant senior manager of the landlord is required to provide an apology to the resident either in person, or in writing. The resident should be given the option as to how the apology will be delivered.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £2,300 to the resident (inclusive of the £500 it offered through its complaints process), made up of:
    1. £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of damp and mould reports;
    2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs in the property;
    3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of pest control issues;
    4. £300 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of her complaints.
  3. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should carry out a full damp and mould inspection of the property by an independent damp and mould specialist. The landlord should provide a copy of the report to the resident and this Service within 14 days of the inspection, including a timescale for any works that it finds to be required.
  4. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should complete an inspection of the property, in particular the walls and windows, to assess any further required works. The landlord should provide a copy of its report, including photographs, to the resident and this Service within 14 days of the inspection. This should include a timescale for any works that it finds to be required.
  5. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should have an inspection of the property carried out by a pest control specialist to ensure that all required proofing works have been completed and consider whether any further works are required. The landlord should provide a copy of the report to the resident and this Service within 14 days of the inspection, including a timescale for any works that it finds to be required.
  6. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.