Hyde Housing Association Limited (202518333)

Decision
Case ID	202518333
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	19 January 2026

Background

The resident reported concerns with damp, mould and coldness in her bedroom. She expressed concern about using the bedroom, and that this was impacting her physical disability. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould and coldness in the resident’s bedroom.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould and coldness in the resident’s bedroom.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp, mould and coldness in the resident’s bedroom

The landlord failed to complete identified works to rectify damp, mould and coldness within its policy timescales.

Handling of the complaint

The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays in its complaint handling and offered proportionate compensation 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	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 16 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repair. This amount is in addition to its final offer of £650 offered for the failings identified by its handling of the repairs. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 16 February 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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

16 February 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repair.

This amount is in addition to its final offer of £650 offered for the failings identified by its handling of the repairs. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

16 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered for its complaint handling failures. This is because our finding of reasonable redress was made partly on the basis that this amount was paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2022	The resident said she reported concerns that her bedroom was damp and cold.
15 May 2023	The landlord inspected the property for mould and cracks.
13 September 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint by telephone. She was unhappy that no work had been completed to resolve the damp in her bedroom floorboards. It was affecting her because she slept in that room on a medical bed. She had called the surveyor and left many messages. Despite being told the matter was being escalated it was in fact not.
19 September 2024	The resident emailed the landlord with more details of her concerns. She said: The room had cracks on the wall, ceiling and floor where cold air was coming in. The bedding on her medical bed was damp from the issues in her bedroom. She had reported the matter over the years, but nothing had been done. A report was completed previously where the inspector seemed “quite concerned” about the damp and cold. They told her they could feel the cold coming through the floor. But she did not hear back from the landlord after this. She was a disabled pensioner with health conditions.
8 October 2024	The landlord inspected the property for damp and cracks.
9 October 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It: Accepted it should have completed repairs much sooner. Accepted it had failed to update the resident despite her reports and attempts to chase the matter on 18 January 2024 and 9 May 2024. Apologised for its failures. Said its surveyor was waiting for a quote and she would be updated on 14 October 2024. Said it recognised it needed to enhance its communication with customers, share investigation findings and address questions. Offered compensation of £350 comprising of: – £100 for delays. – £200 for distress and inconvenience caused. – £50 for complaint handling failures.
27 October 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said: She wanted copies of inspection reports from 2022 and 2023, which she had previously been told she could have. The landlord had arranged a roof repair appointment on 4 November 2024, but she had not been told what was to be done. She was concerned there would be further delays as she had been previously told an asbestos check would need to be done. She was unhappy that neither the surveyor nor manager had contacted her as promised at stage 1. She said she was sleeping in damp and cold conditions and her clothes felt damp.
13 December 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It agreed that it had failed to progress the matter and keep the resident updated. It apologised for this and added: It did not share contractor reports with residents. It had fed back communication concerns to the surveyor’s manager. It had not examined events 12 months before the complaint was made in line with its policy. The agreed works from the visit on 11 December 2024 were: installing thermal boarding and draught excluders, redecorating, inspecting the roof for insulation and purchasing heavier curtains. As discussed with the resident, she would sleep in another bedroom and it would complete works around her medical bed. It would obtain quotes, agree a timescale and complete the work on consecutive days to minimise impact on her. It increased its compensation offer to £700 comprising of: – £100 for lack of communication. – £250 for delays. – £300 for distress and inconvenience. – £50 for complaint handling failures. It also agreed to reimburse the resident for a cleaner she used.
April 2025	The landlord completed the works to the bedroom.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s responses. In particular the level of compensation that was offered. She considers that she should be compensated further because of the impact of its poor communication.

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	Reports of damp, mould and coldness in the resident’s bedroom.
Finding	Maladministration

It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the resident first reported concerns about damp, mould and coldness in her bedroom. The resident told us that she reported the issue in 2022. She said that at this time the landlord attended to take pictures, but no further action was taken. The first entry in the landlord’s records is for an inspection of the bedroom on 15 May 2023. We do not dispute the resident’s comments, however there is no other evidence to support the reports in 2022. While it was appropriate for the landlord to attend and inspect, it is unclear what prompted it to do so and in the absence of evidence we cannot establish whether the inspection was timely. However, the landlord should reasonably have recorded this information so that it had an accurate audit trail of the reports it had received and action it took in response.
The inspection notes state that the bedroom needed thermal boarding and the resident and her daughter would let the landlord know when it was convenient for the work to be completed. It was reasonable for it to afford the resident the opportunity to think about when it would be best for the works to take place. However, it was aware of the need for the repair and should therefore have taken action to monitor the situation. This could have included agreeing to contact the resident or her daughter by a particular date to see how they wished to proceed.
On 7 November 2023, it made a note that it was to await contact from the resident and to monitor the matter. There is no further evidence to show what happened next which is not appropriate and indicates poor record keeping. Its also not clear if the resident did update it with prospective dates. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that the resident chased it on 18 January 2024 and 9 May 2024.
It was not until 13 September 2024, when the landlord spoke to the resident to organise a monitoring inspection, that it realised that the repairs had not yet been undertaken. It noted at the time that there had been a communication breakdown between the surveyor and the resident. While this may have been the case, it does not explain why action had not been taken to progress the repairs for approximately 16 months. It also suggests a failure by the landlord to monitor the repair adequately.
As a result of the landlord’s failure, the resident incurred time and trouble chasing it. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident yet there is no evidence to show it took these into account. It should have reasonably considered whether it should have prioritised the repair, or whether there was anything it could do to mitigate the risk to the resident.
The resident’s formal complaint prompted the landlord to investigate the matter again. This should not have been necessary. The landlord completed another survey on 8 October 2024. It highlighted further work, such as checking the roof insulation, installing a new radiator, potentially installing a vent, repairing cracks and checking previous heat survey results.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to complete an up to date inspection, it took 17 days from the date of the complaint to organise this. This was not appropriate and outside of its damp and mould procedure which states it aims to do inspections within 7 days of reporting. We note that some of this delay was caused by it having to chase its surveyor for responses; however, the landlord should reasonably have measures in place to deal with such circumstances so that residents are not inconvenienced and repairs are not delayed. The landlord should also have been seeking to avoid further delay given the time that had already lapsed since the resident’s initial report.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it would contact the resident on 14 October 2024. Despite providing this assurance, it did not. The resident escalated her complaint as a result.
Both parties were later able to agree a mutually convenient date for the works to take place. We note the resident asked the landlord to start in early 2025, and we acknowledge that this was due to her health and her being in hospital. The landlord completed the work in April 2025.
It is positive that the landlord recognised its failings at stage 1 and 2. However, its offer of compensation did not adequately put things right. We note it offered £650 compensation for delays, distress and inconvenience and poor communication. While this was a reasonable offer, it was not entirely proportionate in the circumstances. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order it to pay the resident a further £400 compensation. This takes into account the resident’s vulnerabilities, lack of updates, length of time and poor communication. It recognises the prolonged impact on the resident who slept in the bedroom with the issues in her medical bed while the work was pending in total for approximately 2 years.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. The landlord took 17 working days to issue its stage 1 response and 29 working days to issue its stage 2 response. This was not in accordance with the Code.
The landlord appropriately:
1. Acknowledged the complaint and escalation request.
2. Requested extensions to provide its stage 1 and 2 responses.
3. Offered £50 compensation in recognition of its general complaint handling failures.
It was positive that the landlord took steps to put things right. While we found that it did not quite go far enough, its overall approach to the handling of the complaint was fair and in keeping with its policy and the Code. We consider its offer of £50 compensation to be fair, given it did not adhere to the policy timescales, the additional delay caused was minor and it agreed extensions. As such, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

The landlord’s handling of the repair was hampered by its difficulty in getting its surveyor to respond to requests. It should consider reviewing its internal service level agreements to ensure better service delivery.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping affected its ability to keep track of the progress of the repair. It should consider investigating why its system of monitoring was not effective in this case.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It should consider how it can make improvements to better support its vulnerable residents.