Hyde Housing Association Limited (202402976)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402976

Hyde Housing Association Limited

27 January 2025

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

The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s:
1. Mutual exchange.
2. Reports of damp, mould and outstanding repairs.
3. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

At the time of the complaint, the resident lived with her partner in a 3 bedroom end of terrace house. She was an assured tenant of the landlord and moved into the property in February 2024. Both she and her partner have physical disabilities, of which the landlord was aware.
On 15 January 2024 the landlord conducted a remote visual inspection of the property. The resident signed on 19 January 2024 to confirm she agreed with the outcome of inspection and moved into the property on 26 February 2024. On the same day, she reported to the landlord that her front door lock repeatedly jammed. A handyman attended the following day, on 27 February 2024, to replace the locks to the front and back doors.
A local councillor wrote to the landlord on 12 March 2024 to say he had been contacted by the resident about problems they were having with her property. He stated that there was damp and mould throughout the property, which needed “urgent attention”. He added that the water pressure was “so low” that they could not have a shower and “flush the loo or turn a tap on at the same time”. The landlord responded on 15 March 2024 to say that it had booked for a mould wash to be completed on 21 March 2024. It added that it would contact the resident to clarify whether there were any other repairs that it needed to book.
On 5 April 2024, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that:
1. On 21 March 2024, she had handed her neighbourhood officer a file, listing all the outstanding repairs and told him that she wished it to be logged as a formal complaint. To date, she had not received an acknowledgement.
2. She had been “led to believe” the landlord had inspected the property in person before she moved in. Instead, it carried this out via a video call with the previous tenant. She considered that had it been carried out in-person, the property would not have been “classed as in a good and clean condition”.
3. She and her husband had been diagnosed with upper respiratory infections within 2 weeks of moving in.
4. She was told a surveyor would attend on 21 March 2024 but nobody turned up and the landlord had made no attempt to rearrange the appointment.
5. A contractor visited on 4 April 2024 and she showed him where she had attempted to remove and clean off the mould and where it had “repeatedly come back”.
6. The ventilation system had never worked since she moved in and there were no trickle vents to any of the windows or doors.
7. The seals in “every window and door” were in an “extremely poor state”.
8. She had to buy a dehumidifier “to try and lessen the damp” and wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the cost of running it.
9. The landlord had “done little to communicate” with her about “the multitude of necessary and urgent repairs”.
The landlord responded on 12 April 2024 and said it was sorry to hear of the resident’s frustrations around outstanding repairs and mould. It confirmed it had found a complaint reference number, which it would allocate to an officer. It wrote to her again on 15 April 2024 to say that, to avoid any further delays, it had asked its surveyor to contact her to rearrange a damp inspection. It had also asked its heating contractor to investigate the issues with the ventilation system.
On 22 April 2024, the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint and then sent a written acknowledgement on the same day, outlining the concerns she had raised. On 23 April 2024, it sent her its stage 1 response, which stated that:
1. The residents meeting she had attended on 21 March 2024 was “very busy” and, according to the neighbourhood officer, he had not been told directly to raise a complaint for her. It acknowledged she had “filled in a form” but, due to the number of forms received, it had not raised her complaint “immediately”.
2. It had looked at the history of the property and confirmed it had not received any reports regarding doors, windows or mould issues. As such, it had not failed to meet its obligations with regard to any repair requests.
3. It had carried out a video inspection with the previous tenant, who showed it the areas of the home within the condition checklist. It had therefore not failed within the mutual exchange process. Although the inspection was carried out virtually, it had also requested a “complete set of property photos from the outgoing party”, which it had reviewed along with the completed inspection form.
4. There was nothing noted of concern on the inspection form or photos that suggested that the property did not meet an acceptable standard.
5. It encouraged all potential incoming tenants to visit the property in person. If they were unable to attend, the landlord would proceed with the exchange. However, this was on condition that the incoming tenant signed the completed inspection form to say they accepted the condition of the property.
6. It had taken the resident’s experience as a learning point and would ensure all future mutual exchanges were completed following in-person inspections.
7. It did not uphold her complaint but offered her £50 compensation for the delay in acknowledging her complaint.
The resident responded to the landlord on 23 April 2024 and asked it to escalate her complaint. She stated that:
1. She did not accept landlord’s offer of £50 because she felt it did not adequately compensate her for the impact caused.
2. At the end of the resident’s meeting, she had told a member of staff that she had handed her neighbourhood officer a formal complaint and “several people” had heard her say that.
3. It was not her fault that the previous tenant did not report the condition of the windows and doors in the property.
4. Issues that would automatically be picked up by an in person inspection would not be noticed through a camera lens.
5. She had to purchase a dehumidifier to try and lessen the moisture in the property due to the ventilation system not working.
The landlord carried out a damp inspection of the property on 24 April 2024. The surveyor did not identify any damp and the only condensation he noted was around the window frames. In response to issues the resident had highlighted during the inspection, the surveyor raised the following repairs:
1. Carry out a survey of the windows and external doors to ensure they functioned correctly and that the seals were efficient.
2. Replace the thermostatic bath taps.
3. Check why the water pressure dropped when the shower was on.
4. Repair a plinth heater.

He added that the contractor had attended to assess the ventilation unit and raised works to repair it.

The landlord repaired the resident’s plinth heater on 17 April 2024 and acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 30 April 2024. It then completed most of the remaining repairs raised by the surveyor on 9 May 2024 and issued its stage 2 response on 18 May 2024. It stated that:
1. In order for it to be able to reimburse her for the cost of having to run a dehumidifier, it needed copies of her energy bills so it could calculate her usage. She could also contact her supplier if she wished in order to get a more accurate calculation.
2. It recognised that her personal circumstances meant that delays in completing the repairs had impacted her “greatly”, causing her further distress and inconvenience. It apologised for this.
3. It agreed that it had failed to address her initial concerns about outstanding repairs to her home as a formal complaint. It also acknowledged that it had not properly followed its complaints process.
4. It wanted to increase its offer of compensation to £400, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £100 in recognition of poor complaint handling.
  2. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble.
  3. £100 for the delays completing repairs.
  4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
On 24 May 2024, the landlord’s heating contractor attended the property to replace the ventilation unit. On 5 June 2024, the resident approached the Ombudsman. She stated that the property was no longer suitable for her and that it had exacerbated her and her partner’s disabilities. She stated that, had she been made aware the ventilation until was not working, she would not have completed the exchange. She added that the repairs “were not done even close to an acceptable timetable” and that the landlord’s response to her complaint was “substandard”.
The landlord completed repairs to the window and door seals on 19 July 2024. It then carried out an independent survey of the property on 21 June 2024, which found the property to be in a “satisfactory habitable condition”. It also commissioned a further survey of the ventilation system on 9 July 2024. The records show that the resident moved to a different property in November 2024.

Assessment and findings

Legal and policy framework

The tenancy agreement is a legally binding document that both the resident and the landlord are bound by. In line with section 11(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, it states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is “fit for human habitation” in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation.
The landlord’s repairs procedure sets out 2 categories of responsive repair. Emergency repairs must be attended to within 4 hours and it must complete a “make safe” repair within 24 hours. For routine repairs, which the landlord refers to as “anytime repairs”, the landlord will ensure an appointment is arranged within 20 working days of the resident reporting the repair.
The landlord’s pre- and post-inspection policy states that pre-inspections should be carried out in the event of potential damp and mould cases. The target time for a surveyor to complete the pre-inspection is within 10 working days of the inspection order date. Having carried out the inspection, the landlord should advise the resident of its findings and explain how it will proceed.
The landlord has a compensation policy, which awards financial redress in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused, and time and trouble incurred for failures in service provision. The policy does not quote any specific amounts. It also states that, if there is a failure to meet its service contracts, it may make an ex-gratia payment in recognition of the failure.
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2 stage process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If a resident escalates their complaint to stage 2, the landlord will review its stage 1 response and consider any additional information the resident provides. It will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days. If the landlord requires more time to complete either a stage 1 or 2 investigation, it will explain this to the resident and will give a revised response date, which will be no later than a further 10 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Scope of investigation

The resident has told the Service that her and her partner’s health has been negatively affected by the condition of the property and the landlord’s response to her reports. The resident’s comments are acknowledged. However, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. These are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident has also raised other concerns, including the loss of hot water and the quality of the repair to the ventilation system. As these issues did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage. This is because, in fairness, the landlord first needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get these matters resolved. She may then approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied.

Mutual exchange

The landlord’s information leaflet on mutual exchanges states that it needs to check that the property “is in good shape”. It explains that the inspection takes about an hour and the resident will receive a summary inspection form once it’s complete, which both tenants will need to sign. It adds that it recommends residents carry out their own inspections to make sure the home they want to move to is suitable for all their needs. The leaflet does not specify that the landlord’s inspection should be carried out in person.
It is unclear why the landlord did not carry out a physical inspection of the property. Although it would have been good practice to do so, we have seen nothing in the landlord’s policies that prevents it from completing one remotely. However, it is unclear whether the resident was informed at the outset that the landlord may undertake a virtual inspection only. It would have been reasonable for it to have made this clear at the outset so that the resident’s expectations were adequately managed. That it did not do so was a shortcoming
The resident’s concern that she was led to believe the inspection was carried out in person is noted. However, although we would not dispute what the resident has stated, we have seen no evidence to support this. The inspection form provided to the resident stated that the inspection was completed via video call, that the property was in “good clean condition” and that there were no outstanding repairs required. The records show that the landlord had also provided her with photographs of the property and that she had signed the form to confirm she was happy with the outcome of the inspection.
We have not seen any evidence that the previous tenants had reported any outstanding repairs, or damp and mould issues with the property. This is supported by the outcome of the remote inspection and subsequent in-person inspections the landlord carried out after the resident moved in. As such, there was no reasonable way the landlord could therefore have been aware of the outstanding repairs until the resident had reported them. The landlord would have had to rely on the incoming tenant to report any problems, which it would then have been obliged to respond to in line with its policies and procedures.
Furthermore, the inspections that landlords carry out for mutual exchanges are visual rather than specialist ones. There is no guarantee therefore that the outcome of a physical inspection would have been different. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged the limitations of remote inspections as a learning point in its stage 1 response. As a result, it advised that, going forward, it would carry out all future property checks in person. This was reasonable. For the reasons stated above, we have not identified any failings in the way the landlord handled the resident’s mutual exchange. For that reason, have found no maladministration.

Reports of damp, mould and outstanding repairs

The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge the resident’s reports of the impacts the condition of the property had on her and her partner. However, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on the extensiveness or seriousness of the damp and mould itself. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action, and followed good practice.
Our spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner.
The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
It is unclear when the resident first reported damp and mould in her property. The first records we have seen of the issue being raised is an email from a local councillor dated 12 March 2024. The councillor wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf, stating that there was “damp and mould throughout the property”. There is evidence that the landlord arranged for an inspection to take place on 21 March 2024. This would have been within its 10 working day target as set out in its pre- and post-inspection policy. The inspection did not go ahead on this date. It is unclear from the records why this was the case.
Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 5 April 2024, the landlord promptly rearranged the inspection for 12 April 2024. It was appropriate that the landlord raised a further inspection. However, it should not have been necessary for this to have been prompted by a complaint. That it was demonstrates poor repair tracking, and caused unnecessary inconvenience to the resident. The landlord should ensure it has a mechanism in place so that when damp inspections are cancelled for any reason, it contacts residents in a timely manner to rearrange them for the soonest practicable date. This is especially so in cases of damp and mould where timely intervention is imperative.
The records show that the damp inspection the landlord carried out on 12 April 2024 found little evidence of damp and mould, and that the only sign of condensation was around the windows. The landlord has not provided a comprehensive report of its findings and therefore provided no specific details on what checks it had undertaken to investigate damp. The landlord’s findings are not disputed. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided information on which parts of the property it had inspected, whether it had taken any damp meter readings and whether it had looked at the exterior of the building to check for possible causes. This would have demonstrated that it had taken all reasonable steps to assure itself the property did not have a significant damp problem. However, it is noted that the landlord carried out an independent survey of the property on 21 June 2024, which also identified no significant issue with damp and mould.
Although the inspection did not find damp and mould in the property, it did identify an issue with condensation around the windows. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord provided any advice on how to deal with this, or that it sent the resident any written information about condensation management. The importance of this is highlighted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. The lack of guidance provided to the resident was a shortcoming in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure that it has measures in place to provide residents with information about dealing with damp, mould and condensation when such reports are received. It should be noted however that the resident had purchased and was running a dehumidifier, which would have helped minimise any condensation in the property.
Following the inspection of 12 April 2024, the surveyor raised repairs to the shower and plinth heater, and arranged a survey of the windows and external doors. The evidence shows these were completed within the landlord’s 20 working day timescale for routine repairs. This was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy.
However, the records show that some repairs were delayed. For example, on 12 March 2024, the resident reported low water pressure when using her shower. The landlord did not attend to this until 9 May 2024, 41 working days later. It found that the water stop tap in the property had not been sufficiently opened. Given this was a straightforward repair, it is unclear why an operative could not have visited earlier to resolve this issue. Furthermore, it took the landlord 51 working days to complete the window and exterior door repairs following its survey of 9 May 2024. The landlord has not offered any explanation for these delays, or why it had departed from its repairs policy.
Additionally, the landlord has provided no evidence it updated the resident about those repairs. The resident was reporting that the condition of the window and door deals was exacerbating her vulnerabilities and contributing to higher energy costs. Given this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have dealt with the repair with greater urgency. Considering its obligations, it was inappropriate for the landlord to have failed to update the resident accordingly. This would have provided her with some reassurance the repairs were in hand. The landlord’s poor communication would have only served to cause additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
It is noted that, after the resident made the landlord aware on 4 April 2024 that her ventilation unit was not working, the contractor attended 5 working days later to inspect it. This was appropriate. It then fitted a new ventilation unit on 24 May 2024, 35 working days later. Although this represents a delay outside its 20 working day target, it was not excessive. Furthermore, there is evidence the contractor had contacted the resident shortly after its inspection to arrange an appointment to replace the unit. This suggests that the landlord had appropriately managed the resident’s expectations with regard to when this repair would be completed.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
In its stage 2 response, despite having not found any damp and mould, the landlord agreed it would reimburse the resident for the cost of running a dehumidifier. This was subject to her providing comparable energy bills, which was appropriate. It outlined its learning from the complaint and changes it would make to its service as a result. It also acknowledged and apologised for the delays in completing some repairs and the impact this would have had on her, given her vulnerabilities. It offered her £400 compensation, £300 of which was in recognition of time and effort, the delays in completing repairs, and for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was reasonable and in line with the amount the Ombudsman would offer for similar failings. For the reasons stated above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaint

The resident has stated that, during a residents’ meeting on 21 March 2024, she handed her neighbourhood manager information relating to repairs in her home and asked him to treat this as a formal complaint. This was disputed by the landlord, who stated in its stage 1 response that the neighbourhood manager had not been asked to raise a complaint for her. The Ombudsman does not dispute what the resident has stated. However, without any supporting evidence, it is not possible for us to comment any further.
However, the landlord has acknowledged that the resident had handed it a form during the meeting and that, due to the number of forms it had received, it had not “immediately” raised her complaint.
It is noted that additional pressures on existing resources can sometimes mean residents’ correspondence may not be processed as quickly it should. However, this should not prevent landlords from meeting their obligations or properly following their complaints policies. The landlord could reasonablyhave provided the resident with confirmation it had received her form, and assured her that it would send her a more substantial acknowledgement in due course. Instead, she was left to chase this up on 5 April 2024 after not having heard back from the landlord, with any indication her complaint had been logged.
It is noted that the landlord had already recorded a complaint reference number when she chased her complaint. However, It was not until 22 April 2024, 21 working days later, that the landlord sent her an acknowledgement. This demonstrates a failure in effective complaint tracking. The landlord should ensure that, once a complaint reference number is created, it sends an acknowledgement within the timescale set out in its complaints policy. That it failed to do so in this case was a departure from its own policy and the Code.
After the resident chased her stage 1 complaint on 5 April 2024, and then again on 11 April 2024, the records show the landlord issued its response on 23 April 2024, 22 working days after she had initially raised it. There is no evidence the landlord had provided any updates during this time, informed the resident the response would be delayed or attempted to agree a new response date with her.
Furthermore, the Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 omitted to address all the issues the resident had raised, namely the outstanding repairs she had reported. This demonstrates further departure from both its policy and the Code.
It is noted that, after the resident escalated her complaint on 23 April 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 May 2024, which was within its 20 working day timescale. This was appropriate.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord accepted its delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint, and offered £50 compensation in recognition of this. In its stage 2 response, it acknowledged that it had not addressed all the issues the resident raised in her stage 1 complaint and that it had failed to properly follow its complaints policy. Furthermore, it offered £400 compensation, of which £100 was an increased offer for its poor complaint handling. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s attempts to put things right were reasonable and resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord to pay the resident the £400 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response, within 4 weeks of receiving this report.
The landlord should review its repair tracking system to ensure it has a mechanism in place so that when damp inspections are cancelled, it contacts the residents in a timely manner to rearrange them for the soonest practicable date.
The landlord should always ensure that, once it creates complaint reference numbers on its complaint handling system, it sends timely acknowledgements to the residents, in line with its complaints policy.