Hyde Housing Association Limited (202321492)

Decision
Case ID	202321492
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 January 2026

Background

1. The resident experienced recurring damp, mould, and pests at her property for a number of years. She is vulnerable due to medical conditions, including a respiratory condition. In September 2023, she complained to the landlord because she felt that the damp, mould and pests had not been effectively resolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. Pests.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Service failure in its handling of the damp and mould.
   2. Reasonable redress in its handling of pests.
   3. Reasonable redress in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

4. The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Its overall handling did not align with its stated zero‑tolerance approach. Its communication with the resident was also poor. While the landlord acknowledged its failings and made an offer of redress, it failed to take proportionate steps to put things right.

 Pests

5. While the landlord’s overall response to the resident’s reports of pests aligned with its policies and procedures, there were delays in filling an identified access point. It also failed to complete a drain survey without explanation, despite committing to do so in its initial complaint response. However, the landlord offered an appropriate remedy during its complaints procedure, which was sufficient to put things right.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. This created unnecessary barriers to its complaints procedure. However, the landlord offered an appropriate remedy during its complaints procedure, which was sufficient to put things right.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £375 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould. This includes an additional payment of £150. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct any amount that it has already paid.	No later than 26 February 2026
2	Communication order The landlord must either provide the resident with its liability insurer’s details so that she can make a claim for damaged possessions or confirm what information it requires to assess a claim internally.	No later than 26 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord pays the resident the £425 it awarded during its complaints procedure for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the pests and complaint handling. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that this amount will be or has already been paid.
We recommend that if the landlord decides to assess the resident’s liability insurance claim itself rather than referring it to its liability insurer, it explains this decision to the resident in writing, including the reasons for the decision.
We recommend that the landlord arranges to complete an updated pest control inspection if it has not done so recently, as the resident has told us that she continues to experience problems with pests at her property.
We recommend that the landlord arranges for an independent specialist to complete a damp and mould inspection if it has not done so recently, as the resident has told us that the damp and mould problem remains unresolved.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 September 2023	The resident complained about the recurring damp, mould and pests. She said they had never been resolved and that at times the landlord had suggested that she was responsible for causing the issues.
29 September 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would respond by 13 October 2023.
11 October 2023	The landlord upheld the resident’s stage 1 complaint. In its complaint response, it accepted that it had delayed, and at times failed, to complete follow‑on works relating to the damp, mould and pests. It also recognised shortcomings in its communication. It committed to completing a damp and mould survey on 18 October 2023. It also said that its pest control contractor would permanently seal a suspected entry point on 24 October 2023. Additionally, it said it would arrange a drain survey to investigate how pests were accessing the cavities, in line with a recommendation from its pest control contractor. It awarded £400 compensation, consisting of: £100 for delays in service delivery. £50 for time and trouble. £250 for distress and inconvenience.
18 October 2023	The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. She said she did not feel that the landlord had completed a thorough investigation to effectively resolve the damp, mould and pests. She also said the compensation offered did not adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience she experienced, the reported impact on her health, or the loss of her belongings.
5 January 2024	As the resident told us that the landlord had not yet escalated her complaint, we contacted the landlord and asked it to accept the escalation and respond by 12 January 2024.
15 January 2024	We contacted the landlord again after it failed to provide a complaint response by the deadline we set. We asked it to provide the response by 22 January 2024.
17 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and upheld the complaint. It accepted that it failed to escalate the complaint and communicated poorly about the damp, mould and pest concerns. Although inspections in October 2023 found no damp or mould, the landlord said it had arranged a wall cavity survey for 22 January 2024. A maintenance supervisor was also scheduled to inspect the property on 19 January 2024 to identify any required remedial works. The landlord said it received no further pest reports after November 2023 but accepted that an operative missed an appointment in December 2023 to complete proofing works. It arranged for pest control to attend on 19 February 2024 to complete proofing works and carry out another inspection. It increased its compensation to £650, consisting of: £200 for complaint handling failures. £100 for time and trouble. £150 for delays in service delivery. £200 for distress and inconvenience.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she did not feel that the landlord had effectively resolved the damp, mould and pest issues during its complaints procedure.

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 pests
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. The resident has told us she experienced recurring damp, mould, and pests for several years before raising her complaint. Under our Scheme, we may only consider issues the resident raised with the landlord within a reasonable period, which is normally 12 months. We have seen no evidence that the resident sought to complain to the landlord prior to September 2023, and, owing to the passage of time and the available evidence, we have investigated the events from September 2022 to February 2024. This covers the 12 months before the resident made the complaint that she has brought to us for investigation and continues until the landlord completed the commitments set out in its stage 2 complaint response.
8. The resident has also told us that the damp, mould and pests have affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. As such, we have not considered this as part of our investigation. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. The first reference to pests in this period is evidenced by a works order raised on 2 August 2023 relating to rats in the resident’s property. The pest control works were completed on 29 August 2023, which was within the landlord’s repair policy timescale of 20 working days for routine repairs. However, it is unclear when the landlord was notified of the issue, meaning we cannot confirm that the associated works order was raised in a timely manner. This falls short of our expectations of landlords maintaining a clear audit trail of events through good record keeping.
10. Within 5 working days of raising a further works order after the resident reported seeing a rat in her kitchen in September 2023, the landlord’s pest control contractor attended the property. It is again unclear when the landlord was first notified of this report. In line with its pest control procedure, access points in the bathroom and kitchen were sealed between 4 and 10 October 2023. An access point in the kitchen was temporarily sealed during this period, with a permanent seal scheduled for 24 October 2023.
11. The evidence shows that this appointment was later rescheduled to 14 November 2023 at the resident’s request and then rearranged again to 22 November 2023. While it has been recorded that the resident was aware of these appointment changes, there is no evidence showing when or how the resident was made aware of them. This poor record keeping means that we cannot confirm what definitely did or did not happen.
12. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords are expected to follow through on commitments made during the complaints procedure. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would arrange a drain survey to check for potential access points into the property. It is unclear why this was not completed. The landlord did not explain this to the resident, which may have led her to feel it was not fully committed to identifying the root cause of the recurring pest issue so it could be addressed holistically.
13. The landlord also did not ensure that an identified access point between the resident’s property and garden shed had been filled at the time, despite a repair order being raised on 27 November 2023 for this to be completed. This may have caused the resident to worry that the pests would return. The landlord acknowledged this failure in its stage 2 complaint response. While it was positive that the works were completed on 18 January 2024, this was unnecessarily delayed.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had arranged further pest proofing works and an updated inspection for February 2024. Though the landlord had not received any further reports of pests, its actions showed a thorough approach to putting right its earlier failures. On 7 February 2024, the pest control contractor confirmed that it found no indication of pests at the property. The landlord was entitled to rely on these findings, and it was fair to conclude that the pest works completed in November 2023 had been effective at the time.
15. The resident has told us that she has since experienced “a major pest problem”. It is unclear if the resident has reported this to the landlord. If she has not done so, she may wish to do so now. If the resident has reported the matter but is unhappy with how the landlord has responded, she can consider raising a new complaint. We cannot investigate her concerns about the current situation now, as the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond. If the resident does make a complaint and remains unhappy with the response, she may refer the matter to us as a new complaint.
16. Effective communication is essential, as it may help to minimise the distress and inconvenience experienced by residents. Throughout this period, the landlord did not take a proactive approach to keeping the resident updated on what action it was taking to resolve the pest problem. This falls short of our communication expectations and may have contributed to the resident’s likely distress, which the landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response.
17. The landlord awarded the resident £225 during its complaints procedure for the impact caused by the identified failures in its handling of the pests. This award aligns with our remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out our approach to compensation. The guidance says that compensation of between £100 and £600 may be appropriate where there were failures that have adversely affected the resident. As we have not identified any further failings, we are satisfied that the offer made was proportionate in the circumstances of the complaint. Therefore, resulting in our finding of reasonable redress. We have recommended that the landlord pay this award if it has not already done so.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

18. Around 22 September 2022, the resident reported a “major damp problem” which she said was affecting her health. An attempt to inspect the property on 20 October 2022 was not successful because the resident asked for a surveyor to attend instead. However, this did not change the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the property was in a good state of repair and free from hazards. Given its responsibilities and the resident’s known health‑related vulnerabilities, the landlord should have worked with the resident to complete an inspection as soon as possible after this. It was unreasonable that the inspection was not completed until 22 March 2023, almost 4 months later. It is concerning that, for this period, potential hazards were left unattended to. It is likely that this excessive delay and the lack of any communication from the landlord during this period caused the resident distress.
19. A damp and mould survey in March 2023 identified “substantial” damp beneath the kitchen flooring, which the landlord attributed to excessive mopping. The evidence does not show how it explained this conclusion to the resident or whether it considered alternative causes. The landlord does dispute that there were shortcomings in its communication about the condition of the home. It apologised in its stage 1 response that the resident felt blamed for the issues. We expect landlords to avoid assumptions that place responsibility on residents without clear evidence or explanation, particularly in damp and mould cases. The landlord’s acknowledgement was appropriate and showed accountability. It also showed learning, as the landlord said it had shared the feedback with the relevant team to prevent a recurrence.
20. Following the survey, the landlord raised several repair orders on 22 March 2023. These included clearing the gutters, replacing the sealant around the exterior back door, and installing weep holes in the exterior front door. The works were completed between 4 and 18 May 2023, which was outside the landlord’s routine repair timescale. In its stage 1 response, the landlord accepted that repairs were not completed within a reasonable timeframe. A delay is not always a failure as the reasons may be outside of the landlord’s control, but the landlord should have kept the resident updated to manage her expectations. By not doing so, it missed an opportunity to reduce any likely distress or inconvenience.
21. In its 2023 self‑assessment against our spotlight report on damp and mould, the landlord said that it “thoroughly” investigates every report of damp and mould and takes a “zero tolerance” approach. However, the landlord’s failure to investigate the resident’s May 2023 report of a “big damp and mould problem” did not reflect this approach. The lack of response to this report may have caused the resident to feel her concerns had been dismissed. This was a clear failure to act on a further report of damp and mould.
22. On 3 October 2023, the landlord raised a repair order for a damp and mould inspection as a matter of urgency following the resident’s stage 1 complaint. In its stage 1 response, it said it would keep the resident updated once the survey was completed. The survey took place on 18 October 2023 and found no damp or mould. However, the landlord did not clearly inform the resident of the findings. This suggested it had not learned from earlier communication shortcomings and may have reduced the resident’s confidence in its commitment to putting things right. We have also not seen a copy of the full survey report, which falls short of our record keeping expectations.
23. Although the survey found no damp or mould, the landlord raised another repair order on 25 October 2023 for an inspection of the resident’s bedroom wall due to wet patches. It is unclear what prompted this, which is a further shortcoming in the records the landlord has provided for our investigation. The repair order was completed around 28 working days later, which exceeded the landlord’s routine repair timescale. After this, the landlord raised a wall cavity survey to be completed.
24. As it committed to in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord completed an inspection for any associated remedial works and a cavity wall survey on 19 and 22 January 2024. It is positive that it met these commitments, which reflects the expectations of the Code. These inspections led the landlord to arrange a pre‑emptive mould wash in the bedroom and bathroom. The landlord told us that it did not identify any necessary follow‑on works from the cavity wall survey and that it continues to monitor the situation. We have also seen evidence that another surveyor inspection took place in February 2024, with no damp or mould found in the property at that time.
25. The resident has told us that the damp and mould has not been effectively resolved and that she continues to experience issues. As with the resident’s concerns about pests, we cannot investigate matters that have occurred since the complaints procedure was exhausted. The resident may wish to contact the landlord in relation to this matter and raise a new complaint if necessary. Given the resident’s recurring reports, and despite the landlord providing evidence that subsequent inspections found no damp and mould, we have recommended that the landlord instruct an independent specialist to complete an updated damp and mould inspection, if it has not recently done so.
26. The resident referred to the loss of possessions because of the damp and mould in her stage 2 complaint. However, the landlord did not address this when it responded. This was a missed opportunity to put things right. We have ordered the landlord to tell the resident how to refer a claim to its liability insurer, or to refer the matter to the relevant internal team. If the landlord decides to assess the claim itself rather than going through its liability insurer, it should explain its decision to the resident in writing, including the reasons for the decision.
27. The landlord awarded the resident £225 during its complaint procedure for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould. However, this amount did not fully reflect the impact of the additional failures identified above. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused. We consider this to be fair given the detriment caused to the resident during the period we have investigated.This is in line with our remedies guidance (referenced above), which says that this amount may be appropriate where the landlord’s compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

28. The landlord had a published complaints policy that aligned with the Code at the time of the resident’s complaint. The policy required it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue stage 1 and stage 2 responses within 10 and 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint slightly outside the expected timescale. The delay was minimal and we have seen no evidence that this caused significant impact. Once acknowledged, it issued the stage 1 response within the required timeframe. However, around 3 months passed between the resident’s first request to escalate her complaint and the landlord’s stage 2 response. This significantly exceeded the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
29. Under its complaints policy, the landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage 2 when the resident said she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. It did not do so, which was a clear failure. The landlord’s records do not explain why it did not escalate the complaint. As a result, the resident had to contact us to progress her concerns. This caused avoidable inconvenience and reduced the effectiveness of the complaints procedure. It was appropriate that the landlord accepted these failures during its complaints procedure.
30. In line with our remedies guidance (referenced above), we find the landlord’s total award of £200 appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused by the identified complaint handling failures. Therefore, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress. We have recommended that the landlord pay the resident the compensation if it has not already done so.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s records did not always contain the level of detail we would expect as part of good record keeping. Its records did not provide us with a clear audit trail of events, making it difficult to assess the appropriateness of its actions at times. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate and accessible records that provide a clear audit trail. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report.

 Communication

32. The landlord’s communication with the resident was often reactive and fell short of expectations around effective communication. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that proactive and tailored communication can reduce distress and minimise the impact of failures. The landlord may wish to review its communication with residents in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report.

Complaint handling

33. The landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the requirements of the Code, as it failed to escalate a complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure in a timely manner. The landlord may wish to review the training it provides to staff and its internal procedures to ensure its complaint handling meets these requirements.