Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202430074)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430074

Hyde Housing Association Limited

21 July 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould as well as concerns about energy efficiency and cavity wall insulation.
    2. Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a two-bedroom flat in a low-rise block of flats owned by the landlord, a housing association. During the period of the complaint, the resident reported that she and her 2 children experienced health issues. She attributed these health issues to the mould and damp conditions within the property. She reported that due to the severity of the issues, the local authority rehoused her on the advice of the local council’s environmental health team on 14 March 2025.
  2. In October and November 2022 the resident reported issues with damp, mould, and condensation in several rooms. She noted mould in the kitchen cupboard and on bedroom walls, as well as condensation near the fuse box. She also raised concerns about faulty storage heaters, insufficient hot water from the immersion tank, and high energy bills.
  3. On 1 and 20 February 2023 the resident made formal complaints to the landlord. She raised concerns about ongoing delays in resolving damp and mould issues, inadequate heating, high energy costs, and poor communication. She also highlighted the negative impact these problems were having on her and her children’s health, including stress and respiratory difficulties.
  4. On 22 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged delays in repairs and poor communication. It awarded £300 in compensation for the delays, communication failures, and distress. The landlord confirmed it had completed several works, including a mould wash and an immersion heater check. It said it had inspected the cavity wall and received a quote for the cavity wall works. However, as there were leaseholders in the block, it had to complete a Section 20 consultation before progressing the works. It said it would keep the resident updated.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint’s procedure on 13 June 2023. She cited unresolved mould, outstanding cavity wall insulation, and continued poor communication. She also raised concerns about the impact on her family’s health and the damage to personal belongings caused by mould.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 March 2025, some 21 months later. It upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged delays in addressing the mould and failures in communication. It confirmed that it had completed the cavity wall insulation on 9 August 2023 and admitted there had been delays. It also reported completing major works to the block, including roof replacement, installation of ventilation systems, drainage improvements, and mould treatments in various rooms. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £1,250 which included £650 for the delays in issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate. She believes the landlord did not fully acknowledge the extent of the harm caused. She expressed frustration over prolonged delays and the lack of proactive communication throughout the process. She is seeking a thorough investigation, greater accountability from the landlord, and an increase in the compensation the landlord offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In communication with us, the resident said the damp and mould issues have had a detrimental impact on her and her family’s health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Reports of damp and mould as well as concerns about energy efficiency and cavity wall insulation.

  1. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states it is responsible for repairs to heating systems and for addressing damp and mould within residents’ homes. It says it will complete emergency repairs, such as total loss of heating, within 24 hours. Urgent repairs within 7 calendar days and routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  2. The landlord’s Damp and Mould Procedure requires it to respond to reports within 5 working days. It must conduct a visual inspection, identify the root cause, and undertake remedial works while keeping the resident informed. It should develop a case action plan and share this with the resident. It will complete a Vulnerability (Person) Risk Assessment to decide if the issue is serious enough to move the resident to a different property and will discuss this option with the resident after completing the assessment.
  3. In this case, the landlord’s repairs log contains insufficient information relating to the resident’s reported concerns. It is unclear from its records when the resident first raised issues, when it attended, and what actions it completed during these visits. We have had to rely mostly on the landlord’s explanation of events provided in its complaint responses. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
  4. The resident reported faulty heaters and lukewarm water on 10 October 2022 and damp near the fuse box on 17 November 2022. The landlord advised covering the fuse box with a bin liner but took no action. This response was not in line with its repairs policy or damp and mould procedure.
  5. Between January and March 2023 the landlord completed some remedial works including mould wash and ventilation insulations. While helpful, these were partial measures that did not address the root causes of the reported issues or heating adequacy. The resident continued to experience damp and inadequate heating. Furthermore, while the landlord eventually completed some damp and mould works within this time, the delay from the resident’s first report in November 2022 to meaningful action was over 60 days later. This breached the expected 5-day response window and 28-day completion time limit of its relevant polices.
  6. By the time of the resident’s formal complaint on 1 February 2023 the landlord had not adequately responded to her reports of faulty storage heaters, completed a damp and mould survey, a case action plan, or a risk assessment. This was more than 3 months from when she first reported the issues on 10 October 2022. This lack of response was a failing and not in line with the landlord’s relevant policy.
  7. The landlord internal communication states that the landlord attended the property on 3 February 2023. It noted that the heating tank was working, however, the resident could not afford to switch it on. The landlord failed to respond adequately to the resident’s concern that the boiler was undersized. Its records suggested the heating system was working properly but did not reflect that this was a matter of insufficient capacity rather than fault alone.
  8. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 8 February 2023 to carry out a damp and mould survey. In their report the surveyor also noted that the resident said she was only able to put the heater on for a couple of hours each day due to excessive costs. The surveyor noted that the cavity wall insulation was missing and defective. They said they would arrange to complete a cavity wall survey and loft insulation. They said they spoke to the resident about contacting the landlord’s foundation and the local authority about getting assistance with financial issues.
  9. The landlord’s vulnerability policy outlines that staff should identify residents with vulnerabilities at first point of contact and ensure tailored support. It was appropriate of the surveyor to identify the resident’s vulnerability and offer advice. However, the landlord’s records do not show that the landlord followed up on the surveyor’s advice or that it contacted the resident to discuss what additional support it could offer. Also, it did not complete a vulnerability risk assessment to determine the severity of her reports and the suitability for alternative accommodation.
  10. In her correspondence to the landlord on 20 February 2023 the resident complained again about damp and mould in the property, not having hot water in the property due to costs. She said the heaters were insufficient and did not work properly. The landlord’s contractors had previously informed her that she needed a new immersion heater as the one she had was not big enough for the property. She explained the negative effects the situation was having on her family’s health and asked the landlord to move her out of the property.
  11. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to have investigated the resident’s concerns about the size of the heater not being adequate for the property and her reports regarding needing a new immersion heater. Also considering she explained the negative effects the damp and mould was having on her and her 4 months old son’s health, the landlord should have been proactive in resolving the issue or offered her alternative accommodation while it investigated and resolved her concerns.
  12. In its stage 1 complaint response on 22 March 2023 the landlord stated its contractor attended the property on 23 February 2023. They found the heater working, noted the tank was too small and asked the landlord to replace the tank. The landlord accepted service failures and awarded £300 compensation broken down as £100 for delays in completing repairs, £100 for the inconvenience caused, and £100 for poor communication. The landlord explained that it had received a quote for cavity wall insulation and would proceed with the works pending a Section 20 consultation which it expected to take 70-80 days to complete. It said it would keep the resident updated. It provided information on how the residents could claim for her damaged personal items via its liability insurance.
  13. It was reasonable of the landlord to acknowledge its failings, offer compensation and explain how the resident could claim for her damaged personal belongings. However, the amount it offered was too low and did not amount to sufficient redress considering the resident had been reporting the issues since October 2022 more than 5 months from its stage 1 complaint response. Furthermore, the landlord did not provide any information on when it would replace the resident’s tank.
  14. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation. It did not complete any risk assessment, or case action plan as mandated in its damp and mould policy and it did not assess her family’s vulnerabilities, in line with its vulnerability policy. These failings would have led the resident to believe it was not taking her concerns seriously thereby causing unnecessary distress and inconvenience. Furthermore, considering the landlord was aware that the resident was not putting on the heating due to costs it should have proactively engaged with her and explored avenues of supporting her in line with its vulnerable user’s policy. It should also have addressed her concerns around her increased heating costs. It failed to do so.
  15. The resident continued reporting damp and mould and complaining about the lack of cavity wall insulation in the property on 3 April 2023. She reported her child’s deteriorating health and informed the resident that the local council’s environmental health team had become involved due to concerns about the suitability of the property.
  16. By the time of the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 13 June 2023, the landlord had not begun any insulation works and there was minimal communication with the resident regarding any updates on the insulation works or her continued damp and mould reports. This was not in line with the promise it made in its stage 1 complaint response to keep the resident updated on the repairs. Furthermore, since it was aware of the resident’s vulnerability it would have been reasonable to have considered offering alternative accommodation until it had completed these works. It should also have offered more support per its vulnerable user policy.
  17. The landlord stated it completed the cavity wall insulation works on 9 August 2023. This was more than 8 months after the resident first reported damp and mould issues in the property on 17 November 2022 and more than 4 months from its stage 1 complaint response on 22 March 2023. It is understandable that delays can occur in complex situations, such as a Section 20 consultation. However, the landlord should have kept the resident regularly informed with updated timelines or explanations for any delays. This did not happen. The lack of communication likely caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  18. In its stage 2 complaint response on 10 March 2025 the landlord provided a clearer overview of completed works. It said it had completed all damp and mould related works in January 2025. It acknowledged delays, and increased compensation to £600 broken down as £200 customer effort, £200 delays in rectifying the damp and mould issues, £200 for distress and inconvenience. It offered its insurer details for the resident to claim for damaged items and compared her electricity usage to official energy regulator’s benchmarks. This was reasonable.
  19. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  20. However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not fully address why it failed to upgrade the heating system despite recognising its limited capacity. It failed to complete a damp and mould risk assessment, case action plan or offer alternative accommodation. While the landlord completed damp and mould repairs, the significant delay, poor communication, and lack of tailored support for a vulnerable household amount to failings. Although the landlord offered a more substantial amount of £600, this still did not reflect the impact of the identified failings.
  21. In conclusion, although the landlord made some attempts to put things right for the resident, its actions do not amount to reasonable redress. The landlord consistently failed to follow its policies and maintained poor communication throughout the process. The landlord failed to act promptly on reports of damp, mould, and heating inadequacy. It did not assess or respond to the resident’s vulnerability, nor did it provide alternative accommodation or install an appropriate boiler despite acknowledging that the current system was undersized.
  22. We have found maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould as well as concerns about energy efficiency and cavity wall insulation.
  23. As a result, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £400 in compensation.
  24. This amount reflects the ongoing distress and inconvenience the resident experienced and is consistent with the landlord’s own compensation policy, which states that awards should consider any vulnerabilities, as well as the extent, severity, and impact of the failure. It also aligns with our remedies guidance for cases involving failures that have had a significant detrimental effect on the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy state that it should acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It should provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. If the landlord is not able to meet this target, it must agree a revised timescale with the resident. These expectations are aligned with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident submitted her complaint on 1 February 2023. The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond until 22 March 2023, about 7 weeks later. This delay breached its own policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  3. The stage 1 complaint response failed to fully address the resident’s concerns about the timeline for works, her request for alternative accommodation, and concerns about heating costs. The response focused on partial repairs and gave limited information about when critical works such as cavity wall insulation would be completed. This lack of clarity likely contributed to ongoing uncertainty for the resident.
  4. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 13 June 2023 due to unresolved issues. The landlord did not acknowledge this request or begin a stage 2 complaint review. It was only after the involvement of the Housing Ombudsman in March 2025 that the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. This was an excessive delay of nearly 21 months between the escalation request and the final response.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in March 2025 acknowledged this delay, its failures in communication, complaint handling, service delivery and shared lessons learned on how it would improve its future complaint handling. It also offered increased compensation of £650 for its complaint handling.
  6. In conclusion, although there were complaint handling failings, the landlord clearly acknowledged its failings, explained what had gone wrong, and committed to service improvements. The increased compensation of £650 for its complaint handling failures was reasonable and above the amounts recommended in our Remedies Guidance for cases involving extended delay and repeated failure to respond to complaints. The landlord’s actions therefore constitute reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould as well as concerns about energy efficiency and cavity wall insulation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete the following orders and provide evidence of compliance to us:
    1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This should include failures for the time taken to fully resolve the resident’s reported issue and not addressing her vulnerability and her request to be rehoused. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
    2. Pay the resident the total sum of £1,000 in compensation broken down as:
      1. The £600 it previously offered in its stage 2 response of 10 March 2025 if not already paid.
      2. An additional £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of damp, mould, and concerns about energy efficiency and cavity wall insulation.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident the £650 compensation previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response on 10 March 2025 if it has not already done so.
    2. The finding of reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint is dependent on the payment of this sum.