Hyde Housing Association Limited (202525428)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in her property, saying it has not resolved issues despite temporarily moving her. She feels that the damp and mould, as well as a rat issue, means her home is not habitable.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. damp and mould and the associated repairs
   2. a rat infestation
   3. issues in communal areas
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs
   2. reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation
   3. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues in communal areas
   4. no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. The landlord initially attended to carry out a damp and mould inspection in a timely manner. However, it did not inspect thoroughly and took too long to identify a leak. It then failed to carry out works in a reasonable timeframe and has provided no evidence it resolved the damp and mould.

Rat infestation

6. There was a short delay in the landlord’s initial pest control visit to the property. It recognised this in its stage 1 response and its apology was in line with our remedies guidance for where there was minimal impact caused by the failing.

Communal issues

7. The landlord failed to complete works to trees after arranging for surveys. This led to the matter remaining unresolved for over a year. It was also too slow to act in relation to a sewage leak in the communal garden.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy at both stages.

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.

Recommendations

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

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 considered

9. The resident has told us about issues with her front door, a block access gate, and the suitability of temporary accommodation the landlord moved her into while it conducted repairs. She did not raise these issues as part of her complaint to the landlord, so we have not investigated these. If she remains unhappy with these issues, she can raise this directly with the landlord as a new complaint.
10. The resident told us she first reported damp and mould in the autumn of 2022. This investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2025 onwards, that the landlord considered during its complaints process. This is because we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Damp and mould

11. The landlord’s repairs records show the resident reported damp and mould on 30 April 2025. It conducted an inspection on 7 May 2025, which was in line with its repairs policy for routine repairs. It found possible leaks on the bath and kitchen sink, as well as damaged downpipes. It said that it needed to conduct further investigation into a leak under the bath. It recommended works to change an extractor fan, regrout tiles, fix downpipes and conduct mould treatment. It said it should conduct a 3-month monitoring inspection. This initial response from the landlord was reasonable.
12. When the landlord’s contractor conducted a pest control inspection on 21 May 2025, it noted that the flat appeared very damp and mouldy. It said the back wall was soaking wet and full of damp. The landlord’s records do not show that it completed any of the works identified during the inspection on 7 May 2025, or took any further action after this visit, which was not appropriate.
13. When the resident raised her complaint on 1 August 2025, she said that she had asked the landlord’s contractor to inspect behind the kitchen sink during its inspection, but it did not do this. She said the damp smell had worsened and she was concerned for her child’s health.
14. In its stage 1 response of 20 August 2025, the landlord said it would schedule a new damp and mould inspection. It said that after further reports from the resident it had raised a job to inspect behind the kitchen sink and found a leak from the flat above. It said this appeared to have been active for some time and had caused significant damage. The landlord’s records do not show when it conducted the further inspection, and it has not provided us with a copy of a report.
15. The landlord acknowledged that it should have identified this leak at the original inspection. The delay in finding this caused further damage and meant it now needed to move her to temporary accommodation while it completed repairs. It offered compensation of £450 to recognise the impact of its failings. It also told her she could submit a claim for her damaged belongings.
16. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 10 September 2025, it increased its compensation offer to £600. It said it was unable to provide compensation for the impact on her and her child’s health and said she may wish to seek legal advice. This was reasonable, and we would also be unable to say if the landlord’s actions had directly caused a detrimental impact on health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can look at independent evidence.
17.  The landlord said that it had initially moved the resident out of the property on 15 August 2025 for 5 days, but that she would now be in temporary accommodation until 22 September. It said it had not received a claim from her for her damaged belongings.
18. The landlord’s offer of compensation and commitment to consider a claim for belongings were reasonable to address its failings at that time. However, it did not complete the works in September 2025 as promised. A pest control inspection report of 20 November 2025 noted that the kitchen works were not yet complete. She told us she moved back into the property in November 2025, but that damp and mould were still present in her child’s bedroom. We have seen no evidence the landlord conducted a post-work inspection to satisfy itself that it had resolved the damp and mould issues.
19. While we cannot say there is a link between the property condition and the health of the resident and her family, the landlord was aware of their vulnerabilities at this time. There is no evidence it took these into consideration before moving them back into a property where repairs were incomplete. It should have carried out a risk assessment in line with its damp and mould policy.
20. The resident told the landlord she wanted to be re-housed due to the repairs issues. It is not within our remit to tell a landlord to move a resident to an alternative property. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was unable to re-house her directly but provided her with options for moving, including registering with the local authority or considering a mutual exchange. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide information about these options.
21. We have made our compensation award in line with our compensation guidance where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put them right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The landlord’s failure to resolve the damp and mould issues following its stage 2 caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.

22. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) classifies rats inside a property as a hazard. The landlord’s pest control policy does not give timescales for it to conduct works/treatments, so we have considered its obligations set out in its repairs policy.
23. The landlord’s repairs records show the resident raised an issue with rats in the property on 18 April 2025. It would have been reasonable for the landlord arrange an initial visit in line with its 7-day timescale for urgent repairs. Its contractor attended on 30 April 2025, which was slightly longer than 7 days after the resident first raised the issue. It identified that a hole behind the boiler needed to be sealed. It said a qualified gas engineer would be needed to get access to fill the hole.
24. Following the initial visit, where the landlord identified necessary repairs, it would have been appropriate for it to complete these in line with its 30-day timescale for routine repairs. Its contractor attended on 21 May 2025 filled the hole behind the boiler, as well as another hole under the bath. This was within 30 days of the initial visit, so this was reasonable. Its contractor conducted a further visit on 30 May 2025, where it found no bait had been taken and there had been no further sightings. It was reasonable for the landlord to close the job at this point.
25. The landlord’s contractor completed a follow up visit on 6 June 2025, where the resident said there were rats in the garden. It filled a gap under a window to ensure rats could not enter the property from the garden, which was a reasonable action for it to take.
26. In its stage 1 response of 20 August 2025 the landlord confirmed that rat proofing had taken place within her property as well as in communal areas. It apologised for a delay in completing work. Given that the delay was only a few days, its apology was a reasonable and proportionate response.
27. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response of 10 September 2025 that it had done rat proofing work. It had identified the need for further proofing work during the repairs to the kitchen, while the resident was in temporary accommodation. The landlord’s records show it completed this work before she returned to the property. We have seen no evidence the landlord should have identified the need for this before carrying out the major kitchen repairs.

28. The pest control report from 30 April 2025 noted that the resident told the landlord’s contractor there was sewage spilling out in the communal garden which needed urgent investigation. We have seen no evidence the landlord took any further action to investigate this at that time, which was not appropriate.
29. An internal email of the landlord from 28 May 2025 showed that had previously obtained quotes for works to trees in the garden in 2024 but it did not appear it had proceeded with works at that time. It is unclear from its records what issues, if any, the trees were causing.
30. In her complaint of 1 August 2025, the resident raised the sewage issue again. She also said there was an electrical cupboard in poor condition, the garden was not being kept safe, and the communal cleaning was insufficient.
31. An internal system note from 11 August 2025 shows the landlord had raised a job for the sewage leak, although it is unclear when. It initially attended on 16 July 2025 but had to reattend to carry out work on 6 August 2025. This was more than 3 months after it became aware of the problem. Its response was not in line with its timescale for routine repairs.
32. A further system note from 18 August 2025 acknowledged that the landlord had missed the communal laundry from its communal cleaning schedule. It said it would add this to the contract. It said that it was not clear whether it had conducted work to trees following previous surveys and quotes and it had ordered a new survey. This demonstrates a record keeping failure and meant the landlord could not demonstrate it had conducted works to trees within a reasonable timeframe.
33. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that reports dating back to April 2025 had confirmed there was raw sewage leaking from the ground. It said it had been unable to resolve the issue during its initial emergency response and had to appoint a specialist contractor. It confirmed that it had instructed a tree surveyor in June 2024 and it was now reviewing quotes. It did not appropriately acknowledge or apologise for its lack of action on this issue for over a year.
34. The landlord acknowledged in its response that the communal cleaning standards had been insufficient and confirmed it had added the laundry room to the contractor’s schedule. Its contractor attended to inspect the electrical cupboard on 14 August 2025 but could not inspect inside the cupboard. It found the only cables visible externally were for phones and TVs and did not represent a hazard. It said it would arrange a full inspection, which was a reasonable response.
35. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it had conducted a further inspection of the electrical cupboard, although it is unclear when this took place. It said it found no exposed wires or health and safety concerns. The landlord’s records show that work to the trees was subsequently completed on 15 December 2025.
36. Overall, the landlord’s handling of communal issues was poor, and it did not do enough in its complaint responses to acknowledge this and put matters right. We have made our compensation award in line with our compensation guidance where there was no permanent impact on the resident, but the landlord failed to address the detriment to the resident. The landlord’s failure to follow up on issues raised by the resident caused her unnecessary distress and inconvenience.

37. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 3 working days after she raised it (1 August to 6 August 2025) – in line with its complaints policy timescale of 5 working days
    2. it sent its stage 1 response 10 working days after acknowledging the complaint (6 August to 20 August 2025) – in line with its policy timescale of 10 working days
    3. it acknowledged the escalation request after 4 working days (21 August to 26 August 2025) – in line with its policy timescale of 5 working days
    4. it sent its stage 2 response 11 working days after acknowledging escalation (26 August to 10 September 2025) – in line with its policy timescale of 20 working days

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord’s overall record keeping was poor, in particular it did not keep good records of inspections and work conducted. Poor record keeping made it hard for the landlord to respond proactively and effectively. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights that without good data management, landlords may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data. This could include better training, clearer guidance, or more support for its staff.

Communication

39. The landlord’s records do not show that its overall communication was good. It did not keep the resident regularly updated during repairs and she had to raise the same issues multiple times in order for it to take action. The landlord should be more proactive in keeping its residents updated while investigations and repairs are ongoing.