Hyde Housing Association Limited (202432546)

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy started in February 2022, and the property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The resident complained about damp and mould in the property in July 2024. She said it had been an ongoing issue for 2 years and it was affecting her children’s health. She completed the landlord’s complaint process in November 2024 and brought her complaint to us, as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found No Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
5. We have found Service failure with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The damp and mould

6. The evidence seen shows the landlord inspected the property, checked for structural defects, adjusted heating settings, and progressed cavity wall insulation works within a reasonable timeframe. Although the resident remained dissatisfied and concerned about the impact of the damp and mould, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the issues.

The complaint

7. The landlord issued its complaint responses in a timely manner, but its stage 1 response did not clearly set out the scope of its investigation or fully explain its reasoning. Although the landlord acknowledged these failings at stage 2 and offered £50 in compensatory redress, it did not clearly outline the learning identified or how it would embed this to prevent recurrence. We therefore find Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling but consider the £50 offered to be proportionate redress.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint 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.

What we have not investigated and why

8. We recognise that this has been a difficult experience for the resident and that she provided detailed documentation about the impact of the damp and mould. However, this Service cannot assess or reach a legally binding determination of the level of health impacts reported by the resident. We can however consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and whether it took account of vulnerable occupants in the property and suitably adjusted its practices. Therefore, if the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of the case further, she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

What we have investigated

9. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould makes clear that landlords should not attribute reports of damp and mould as lifestyle-related without undertaking appropriate investigations to identify any potential structural causes. From evidence seen, the resident first reported the damp and mould in October 2023. In the 2 months that followed, the landlord completed a mould wash to the affected areas, surveyed the roof for the source of water ingress and completed several repairs air vents and air bricks. It also cleared the ventilation unit in the hallway.
10. In September 2024 the resident complained about ongoing damp and mould and raised concerns about the impact on her children’s health. Following these reports, the evidence seen shows that the landlord arranged for a survey of the property in October 2024. During that inspection, the external walls were checked and did not identify high levels of moisture. The landlord also noted that trickle vents were closed, the radiators were obstructed by furniture, and that clothes were being dried indoors.
11. The landlord did not rely solely on these observations. In October 2024, it arranged for its heating contractor to attend and adjust the heating settings, and it also referred the property for a cavity wall insulation (CWI) inspection. This inspection identified void areas within the cavity wall insulation and recommended full extraction and reinjection. The evidence shows the landlord completed a mould wash and the CWI work in November 2024.
12. We have carefully considered whether the landlord’s reliance on lifestyle-related factors was consistent with the principles set out in the Spotlight report. While the landlord’s stage 1 response placed significant emphasis on ventilation and occupancy factors, the evidence seen demonstrates that it also explored potential structural causes. It undertook a survey, checked the roof, reviewed ventilation arrangements, adjusted the heating system, and progressed cavity wall extraction works between October and November 2024.
13. There has been no independent evidence seen to show that a known structural defect was left unresolved or that the landlord failed to act on expert recommendations.
14. The resident told this Service that she and her family have since moved to a different property. While she reported that her children’s health has improved since moving, this Service is unable to draw conclusions about causation, and this information has not been a determinative factor in the findings set out in this report.
15. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to investigate and address the reported damp and mould. While the resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the landlord failed to meet its repair obligations. Accordingly, there was No Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.

16. The landlord issued both its complaint responses within its published timescales. Its stage 1 response was brief and placed over emphasis on lifestyle factors without clearly setting out the scope of its investigation or addressing all of the resident’s concerns in detail.
17. The landlord subsequently acknowledged these shortcomings in its stage 2 response and offered £50 compensation. However, the initial response did not fully demonstrate that all aspects of the complaint had been carefully considered, nor did it clearly explain the technical reasoning behind its conclusions.
18. It also failed to outline learning from the failing identified or detail how it would embed this learning to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future. Therefore, this Service cannot find reasonable redress in this matter.
19. While the landlord’s stage 1 response did not fully comply with the requirements of the Code, the landlord identified failings in its complaint handling and offered £50 to the resident. We consider this sum to be proportionate to the level of time and trouble caused and so no further financial remedy is required.
20. We find Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the landlord should pay the resident the £50 it has previously offered, if it has not already done so.

Learning

21. This case highlights the importance of the landlord clearly identifying learning from complaint handling failures and explaining how that learning will be embedded in practice to eliminate repeated failings.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The evidence provided demonstrates that the landlord maintained appropriate records of inspections and works.

Communication

23. The landlord maintained timely correspondence with the resident and progressed works without undue delay.