Hyde Housing Association Limited (202526762)

Decision
Case ID	202526762
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hyde Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	31 March 2026

Background

1. The resident previously lived in a flat and is a wheelchair user with mental ill-health vulnerabilities. In July 2024, the resident reported damp and mould. She earlier reported reoccurring drainage issues from before March 2024. When she complained to the landlord in March 2025, she said her intercom had not worked for 3 years.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Reoccurring drainage issues.
   2. Damp and mould.
   3. Intercom issues.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Reoccurring drainage issues.
   2. Damp and mould.
5. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Intercom issues.
   2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reoccurring drainage issues

6. The landlord was slow to identify all of the actions to address reoccurring drain issues. It did not consider further investigations after problems continued.

Damp and mould

7. The landlord failed to follow its damp and mould procedure. It did not arrange a follow up visit to check if the issues were resolved. It did not risk assess or categorise the report. It did not ensure all repairs were progressed following its inspection of June 2025.

Intercom issues

8. The landlord delayed referring intercom repairs to the managing agent. It failed to identify learning from this during its complaint handling.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays in sending its stage 1 response. But its stage 2 response did not clearly set out what it would do to address the resident’s damp and mould concerns.

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 28 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750 made up as follows: £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reoccurring drainage issues £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of intercom repairs. £50 for distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 28 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about reoccurring issues with drainage and about damp and mould and intercom issues.
2 April 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had arranged a CCTV survey of the drainage pipes for 2 April 2025. It said it had attended to do mould washes in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in July 2024 and March 2025. It asked her to report any further issues. It said the managing agent for the building had said a broken intercom handset would be replaced and it would contact the resident when this was ready to install.
28 May 2025	The resident requested the escalation of her complaint. She said she received no response to her initial complaint. She wanted permanent solutions to the drainage and damp issues and intercom repairs.
28 May 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said this was not sent properly before.
25 June 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had attended on 18 March 2025 to treat damp and mould, but that the resident told it she had cleaned and repainted the affected surfaces herself. It said that no structural cause for mould was found during this visit. It said it had completed a comprehensive descale of the stack pipe and drainage system on 18 June 2025 to minimise future blockages. It awarded her compensation of £350. This included £300 for drainage, damp, and intercom issues and £50 for its complaint handling failure.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint as she said the drainage and damp/mould issues had not been resolved. She also said she did not have an intercom for 4 years.

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 reoccurring drainage issues
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

10. The resident set out concerns about drain issues at the property going back several years. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident raised a formal complaint in February 2025. We have seen no evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For this reason, we will consider the landlord’s handling of issues since March 2024, which is 12 months prior to her complaint.

What we did investigate

11. Between May 2024 and February 2025, the resident contacted the landlord 5 times to report a blocked toilet, sink, and/or bath. It responded to each report within 24 hours. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure sets out that it will attend blocked waste/toilets as an urgent repair within 7 days. However, it says it may do so more quickly where it has recorded a household vulnerability. It had recorded the resident was disabled. Its response to her reports was within its procedure’s 24-hour timescale for emergency repairs and that was appropriate.
12. The resident reported 4 blockages of the sink/bath within a short period of time, between 11 January 2025 and 27 February 2025. Following this, on 5 March 2025, the landlord raised a CCTV survey of the stack. It noted the drainage contractor completed this survey on 2 April 2025. It recorded internally that this had found no structural issues within the drainage system.
13. The landlord addressed further reports of blockages to the sink/bath between 30 April 2025 and 20 May 2025. It completed work during this time to replace a trap on the kitchen sink. It said it did so as it considered the existing trap type contributed to the reoccurring blockages. It is unclear why the landlord did not identify this earlier given the repeated reports/attendances.
14. The landlord also raised work to descale the stack pipe and the drain on 17 June 2025, which its contractor completed the following day. This was appropriate action considering the ongoing issues the resident had experienced. But she made 5 further reports of issues with a blocked sink/bath between 19 September 2025 and 18 December 2025. The landlord attended each of these within 24 hours.
15. It had said in its stage 2 response that the descaling completed in June 2025 was aimed at minimising the issues’ reoccurrence. Given the longstanding drainage problems the resident had reported, the landlord should have considered further investigations when issues continued. Such action could have identified and addressed the root cause of the continuing blockages.
16. We acknowledge the landlord acted to attend all the resident’s reports within its target response times. We also acknowledge it took some action to investigate and resolve the issues. But, overall, we have found maladministration in its handling of reoccurring drainage issues. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response its delays in resolving the drainage issues. It awarded compensation of £300 for this and its handling of damp and mould and intercom issues. The landlord did not specify the amount that related to each part of the complaint. Given this, we consider it fair and reasonable to attribute £100 to each element of the complaint.
17. We have ordered that the landlord apologise and make an additional award of £200 to the resident to fully recognise the impact of the failings we have identified. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for when such failures have negatively affected the resident.
18. The landlord has told us that the resident’s tenancy has since ended. As such we have not made orders that it complete further repairs/inspections.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

19. The landlord raised a damp and mould treatment for the resident on 2 July 2024. It attended on 14 July 2024 to complete a mould treatment and paint affected areas in the bathroom and corridor. Records show it also upgraded bathroom extractor fans around this time. When the resident complained to the landlord on 6 March 2025, she said that damp and mould issues had persisted and that the landlord had not contacted her to follow up.
20. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure from this time outlines how it will respond to damp and mould reports. It says it will schedule a follow up visit within 6 months of the report. But there is no evidence it acted in line with this procedure. It did not attempt to address the issues again until the resident complained in March 2025. Following this, it attended to complete a mould treatment on 18 March 2025. It noted then that the resident had cleaned and repainted the areas herself as she did not want to wait for it to attend.
21. The landlord said in its complaint response that the resident’s decision to clean/paint affected areas highlighted “inconvenience and lack of confidence” in its timely response. But it did not identify or acknowledge its failure to follow up after the previous treatment in July 2024, contrary to its damp and mould procedure.
22. The landlord said in its complaint response that no structural cause of damp and mould was found when it attended in March 2025. But its records do not show any checks it had completed to establish this. The contractor’s report made no reference to any inspection of these issues. 
23. When the resident spoke to the landlord on 9 June 2025, she told it of her ongoing concerns about damp walls. But its complaint response later that month did not set out the action it had taken or would take to resolve this concern. The landlord’s surveyor had attended on 5 June 2025 and had completed a damp, mould, and condensation form. But the landlord’s damp and mould procedure from April 2025 says it will risk assess and classify damp, mould, and condensation as either mild, moderate, or severe. It says this is to help it manage cases effectively. But there is no evidence it followed this procedure when attending in June 2025.
24. Following its visit in June 2025, the landlord recorded a possible leak from a property above due to water staining to the bathroom ceiling. It also noted that the mechanical ventilation heat recovery system needed servicing. But there is no evidence it progressed either. It is unclear to what extent these were contributing to the damp/mould issues. But the landlord should have ensured all work was appropriately progressed. In line with its damp and mould procedure, it should have completed repairs within 28 days of the inspection. When the resident spoke to us in November 2025, she said damp and mould issues continued and affected both bathrooms and other areas in the property.
25. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It did not appropriately address and resolve these issues in line with its procedures. As noted above, we consider it fair and reasonable to attribute £100 of the landlord’s earlier award to damp and mould issues. We have taken account of this award. However, we consider a further award is appropriate to fully recognise the impact of its failings.
26. We have ordered that the landlord apologise and make an additional award of £200 to the resident to fully recognise the impact of the failings we have identified. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for when such failures have negatively affected the resident.

 

 

 

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of intercom issues
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

27. When the resident complained to the landlord, she said that her intercom had not worked for 3 years. We have seen no evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For this reason, we will consider the landlord’s handling of issues since March 2024, which is 12 months prior to her complaint.

What we did investigate

28. Records show the resident told the landlord on 7 February 2025 that her intercom was not working. The landlord raised this as a routine repair. In line with its repairs policy, it aimed to complete such repairs within 30 days.
29. After the resident complained at the end of February 2025, the landlord identified on 10 March 2025 that it had cancelled the repair as it was the building’s managing agent’s responsibility. There is no evidence it had communicated this to the resident. It also delayed until 13 March 2025 in contacting the managing agent to request a repair. As a result, the work was delayed beyond its repair target response date of 9 March 2025.
30. Subsequently, the landlord maintained appropriate contact with the managing agent about the repair. The managing agent confirmed on 2 April 2025 that they had attended the resident’s flat the previous week. They set out the action they had taken to order a new handset for the flat. They also confirmed that 2 other handsets in the flat had been left working. The managing agent later confirmed that they had completed work to replace the damaged handset on 9 May 2025, which was 61 days after the above target response date.
31. When the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response in June 2025, it acknowledged the delays resolving intercom issues. As noted above, we consider it fair and reasonable to attribute £100 of the landlord’s earlier award to intercom issues. This award appropriately recognised the impact of its failings, as this was within the range of compensation recommended by our remedies guidance for when such failures negatively affect the resident. But it did not clearly identify or acknowledge its initial delay in contacting the managing agent to progress repairs. There is also no evidence it identified any learning from this failing. It should have done so to consider how it could prevent such issues from reoccurring. For this reason, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s intercom issues.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

32. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s complaints policy complied with the Code’s timescales of 10 and 20 working days for stage 1 and 2 responses and definition of a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction.
33. The landlord appropriately contacted the resident on 20 March 2025 to request more time to respond to her stage 1 complaint of 28 February 2025. It told her it would provide its response by 3 April 2025. But it then failed to correctly send its stage 1 response of 2 April 2025. As a result, the resident did not receive it until 28 May 2025, which was 50 working days later than its target response time. The landlord apologised for this in its stage 2 response and its £50 award was appropriate. This is because it was in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such delays in getting matters resolved.
34. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident’s 28 May 2025 escalation was provided within its target response time on 25 June 2025. Among other things, this set out its previous visit about damp and mould in March 2025. It also set out the maintenance needs identified by its inspection of June 2025. But it did not say when these repairs would be completed. Nor did it clearly explain the actions it would take to address the resident’s ongoing damp/mould concerns. The landlord missed the opportunity to ensure all issues were resolved.
35. We have therefore found that the landlord was responsible for service failure in its complaint handling. We have ordered that it apologise to the resident for this and pay her the £50 it previously awarded for its complaint handling failings if it has not paid this already.

Learning

36. The landlord should complete appropriate investigations when repair issues are reoccurring. By doing so it can avoid repeat attendances and the resulting inconvenience and disruption to the resident.
37. The landlord should ensure damp and mould reports are addressed appropriately in line with its procedures.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord made appropriate records showing how it responded to the resident’s repair reports.

Communication

39. The landlord did not communicate appropriately with the resident about her intercom repair. It only did so after she complained. It should have taken early steps to identify who was responsible for the repair so it could be progressed. It should then have updated the resident about this.