Hyde Housing Association Limited (202504817)

Decision
Case ID	202504817
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 November 2025

Background

The resident has lived in the property, a 2-bedroom flat, since August 2023. Her son, who is autistic, lives with her. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the household.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord identified some failings and offered redress, but did not acknowledge or offer redress for the delay in repairing the external wall. It did not explain the reason for the delay to the resident.
The landlord’s overall handling of the complaint was in line with its policy. Its response at stage 1 was delayed but it offered a reasonable explanation for this. There was no significant adverse impact on the resident caused by the delay.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 05 January 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must provide documentary evidence it has paid directly to the resident £650 compensation (inclusive of the £500 previously offered) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to her reports of damp and mould.	No later than 05 January 2026
3	Review The landlord must provide documentary evidence it has reviewed ventilation options and/or alternatives which it can reasonably provide. This should be conducted with an assessment of the reasonable adjustment needs of the resident and her son.	No later than 05 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between September and October 2024	The resident reported damp and mould. The landlord carried out inspections, mould washes, and surveyor visits. It identified work and raised orders. It told the resident it would not carry out more than the identified work as it was not needed.
21 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord and said: She was unhappy it was not doing further work when the property smelled of damp and mould, and her son had asthma. She wanted therma-boards installed; her previous landlord had installed these for the same issue. Bricks were removed from an external wall during an inspection 2 weeks prior but were not replaced.
28 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and did not uphold the complaint. It said all action was completed within service level agreements and a surveyor visited and determined therma-boarding was not necessary. At the resident’s request it had arranged another inspection which also concluded therma-boarding was not needed. It listed a schedule of alternative work it had booked. It said no odour had been noted during visits, but it would address any future concerns.
27 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the issue remained outstanding without any update on actions taken. She raised concerns about the impact on her family’s health. She said the landlord kept sending a surveyor who refused to deal with the issue.
23 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and upheld the complaint. It: Reiterated the timeline from its earlier response, confirming completion of promised repairs. Set out an updated timeline and a schedule of additional work. Said the resident had refused planned work, prompting a further visit to discuss and agree scope. Once the visit had taken place in June 2025 and the work agreed, it would book this in. Accepted delays and the lack of updates to the resident, despite her chasers. Apologised and offered £500 compensation (£100 for effort, £200 for repair delays, and £200 for distress and inconvenience caused). Explained how she could make a claim for damage to personal belongings. Detailed service improvements it had made in response to the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident wants the landlord to install therma-boards and not the offered vents. She says she had vents in her previous property and they did not work. She says her son has sensory issues and the noise from these distresses him. The external brickwork was replaced in October 2025.

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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

The resident has told us about ongoing issues with the landlord. We can only consider issues which have first been raised with the landlord and addressed through its internal complaint process. We do not generally investigate live issues or apply the benefit of hindsight to our investigations. Therefore, new concerns, even about ongoing issues, must first be raised as a new complaint with the landlord. Once any new complaint has completed the landlord’s complaint process, it can be referred to us. This investigation broadly considers events up to the landlord’s stage 2 response of 23 May 2025.
The resident told us her family’s health was impacted by the landlord’s failure to carry out prompt repairs. 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 have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. However, we have considered whether the landlord’s actions caused more general distress and inconvenience.
We do not ordinarily order the landlord to reimburse residents for damage to belongings. It is not within our remit to establish when or how the belongings were damaged. The landlord told the resident how she may make such a claim. She should consider seeking independent advice if she remains unhappy.
It is important to note that it is not our role to establish the underlying cause of damp and mould or how to deal with it in individual properties. We rely on the expertise of surveyors and professionals who inspected the area. Our investigation, therefore, considers only whether the landlord responded appropriately and proportionately to the reports it received from the resident, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
Our investigation found that the landlord handled the resident’s reports promptly, appropriately, and as we’d expect, in the first instance. Broadly, we found the same failings in its later handling as accepted in its complaint responses (for which it apologised and offered compensation). There is nothing further we can usefully add to that. However, we found an additional failing, which we have addressed below.
Given the circumstances, we understand the distress caused, and the impact on the resident and her son. She was unhappy that the landlord sent a surveyor each time she made a report as she felt their findings stayed largely the same. However, we have seen evidence that the surveyor recommended new work on visits, which they believed would help address the issue.
As a social housing provider, the landlord is accountable for its public expenditure. Any action or work it undertakes in response to reports must be proportionate to the severity of the issue. To establish this, the landlord must carry out inspections and surveys. It conducted multiple surveys and visits, identified the work needed, and arranged it. This is what we would expect. As surveyors are the experts, the landlord was rightly guided by their findings, even if the resident disagreed with them.
The landlord arranged for ventilation to be installed but the resident refused the work, saying her son found the noise from them distressing. She said vents were installed in her previous property and did not help. She wanted the landlord to install therma-boards, as her previous landlord did, as she felt this was the only thing that would address the damp and mould.
It is for the landlord to decide what work is needed to address the underlying issue within the property. This is not directed by past actions taken at a different property. Recommendations must be based on the condition and needs of individual properties. It is not reasonable to conclude that a measure would not work without first trying it. It is not possible for us to conclude that therma-boards are a reasonable alternative without additional evidence to support this. We have not seen evidence to suggest therma-boards are needed.
The landlord has a responsibility to ensure it considers and makes reasonable adjustments for its residents. The resident’s son is autistic and has sensory sensitivities which worsen noise related distress. It is not for us to decide what a reasonable adjustment would be in this instance; that is for the landlord to assess. Therefore, if it has not already done so, it should explore if it can install vents which do not make a noise. If it is not possible to do so, it should assess if there are reasonable alternatives. It should then offer those, or explain why it cannot, to the resident. If she is unhappy with this, she may make a new complaint.
Evidence shows that bricks which were removed in October 2024 were not fully repaired until October 2025, a full year later. The resident repeatedly raised this during that time. Records show the landlord opted to leave the cavity open to allow for ongoing inspections and investigations. However, we have not seen that this was explained to the resident or that her concerns were meaningfully addressed. The wall should have been repaired promptly after investigations were completed, but it was not. The resident had to chase this continuously before the matter was rectified.
The landlord has apologised, offered compensation for the failures it identified, and taken action to rectify these. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The compensation it offered is in line with our own remedies guidance for the failings identified. However, it did not acknowledge or redress the delay in repairing the wall. We have, therefore, found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The landlord is ordered to write to the resident with a sincere apology and pay £650 (inclusive of the £500 previously offered) for the trouble, upset, and inconvenience caused by its failings. This is in line with our remedies guidance, considering the length of time taken, the poor communication, the lack of explanation, and the impact on the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by it, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or a group of residents.”
The policy set out a 2-stage complaint process. It set out timeframes; 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint, 10 working days for a full response at stage 1 (with an extension of an extra 10 working days if needed), and 20 working days at stage 2 (with an extension of an extra 20 working days if needed). At both stages, if an extension was needed the resident would be advised and given a revised timeframe.
The resident’s complaint was acknowledged 15 working days after it was raised. The stage 1 response was issued 13 days later. While this was a few days outside the policy timeframes, the landlord updated the resident about the delay and provided a revised timeframe, in line with its policy. The resident’s escalation request was acknowledged within 4 working days. The stage 2 response was then issued 14 working days later. This was in line with the policy.
The resident told us that the landlord refused to escalate her complaint. However, we did not find evidence of this. It explained to her at the time that it needed to issue a stage 1 response before it could escalate to stage 2. It explained why there was a delay in issuing that response and set out her available options. Amongst these was the option to contact us, which she did.
While there was a small delay in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 1, overall, this did not have a material adverse impact on her. The landlord’s response was delayed as it tried to collate all the relevant information it needed to ensure a comprehensive review. We understand the resident’s desire for a swift response but also understand the need to ensure the response provided a meaningful update.
We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord is, however, reminded of the importance of ensuring it acknowledges and logs complaints promptly.
On 8 February 2024 we issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in policy and practice. The Code applied from 1 April 2024 and we have a duty to monitor compliance with it. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. As a result, no specific order is made on this case with regard to the landlord’s compliance with the Code, and the contents of its policies and procedures in that regard.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We had to re-request relevant information to ensure we could investigate and reach a decision. In this case, a substantial delay was not caused. However, the landlord is reminded of its obligation to ensure it promptly provides documents, evidence, policies, or any other information requested by us, to avoid delays in the future.

Communication

The landlord should proactively provide updates and respond promptly to contact from residents so that they do not have to chase.