Hyde Housing Association Limited (202216639)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216639

Hyde Housing Association Limited

2 October 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof and interior damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the top (3rd) floor of a block of flats. The resident has lived there since 2001.
The resident has made two separate complaints to the landlord regarding its handling of roof leaks causing damp and mould issues in the property. The second complaint was made about 10 months after the conclusion of the first one. The events associated with both complaints are summarised below.
The resident first made a report via the landlord’s website on 19 July 2022 that there was rising damp within her flat, in particular the living room and the bedroom ceilings and walls. On 3 August 2022, after receiving no response, she called the customer services line. The landlord explained it needed to contact a surveyor and she should hear back in 7 working days, and if not, she should email the landlord again.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 and 19 August via email and phone to follow up on the issue, but did not receive a response. She made a formal complaint on 2 September 2022.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 8 September 2022 to apologise for the delay and to say a surveyor would attend on 14 September 2022. The landlord then closed the complaint on the basis that “the appointments had been secured”.
The surveyor attended on 14 September 2022 and noted the damp was caused by gutters on the roof being blocked. According to the resident, the surveyor advised her scaffolding was needed and would be erected within 10-15 working days.
On 6 October 2022, the resident called the landlord’s customer services team again. The resident’s account is that the landlord explained to her over the phone it was no longer using the previous contractor for maintenance and it could not find any report of the resident’s damp issues on its system. It said it had logged the resident’s report as a new job on its system and while it could not get her an appointment for roof repairs at that time, it would get back to her in the week of 11 October 2022.
The resident chased the landlord for a follow-up on 11 and 24 October 2022 by phone and email. The landlord told the resident on 24 October 2022 in an email that it had chased up the roof repair with its contractor and asked them to contact the resident directly and advise when they would erect the scaffolding.
The resident contacted this Service for assistance on 29 October 2022. She advised that repairs to the roof and interior mould treatment were outstanding.
A contractor inspected the property on 2 November 2022 and according to the resident again advised her they would put up scaffolding. On 3 November 2022, two roofers from another contractor attended (without an appointment) and informed the resident no scaffolding would be necessary as they could access the roof from the back. They also explained to her she would need to contact the landlord again regarding any interior repairs including the plasterwork on the ceiling (which appeared to have been damaged by the water ingress). On 4 November 2022, the first contractor arrived (without an appointment) to put up scaffolding. The resident then emailed the landlord several times from 4 to 16 November 2022 to express her confusion that different contractors seemed to be involved and had conflicting opinions on whether scaffolding was needed, and she felt the communication from the contractors and the landlord had been poor.
Roof repairs took place from 16 to 18 January 2023 and a post-inspection was carried out on 19 January. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 January 2023 to say while roof works seemed complete, she could see brown stains on the ceiling of the living room and bedroom and continued to be concerned that the damp and mould issues remained unresolved. She also asked for the scaffolding to be struck down.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 30 January 2023, summarised as follows:
1. It confirmed all works to the roof had been completed.
2. It acknowledged that there was a delay to the repairs and it had not communicated well with the resident to explain what repairs were to be done or how it would carry out this work.
3. It acknowledged that after the roof survey on 14 September 2022, the resident had to chase it several times in October and November 2022 for repairs.
4. It offered £500 compensation in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in completing repairs and for her time and trouble.
5. It acknowledged that the roof leaks had caused damage to the ceilings but, as the resident was a leaseholder, it stated she must arrange repairs and recover costs through her own insurance.
The resident accepted the compensation at the time and after the scaffolding was removed she did not pursue the complaint further.
The resident advised this Service that around ten months later (on 30 November 2023) she noticed water again leaking in around her windows and on the walls. She observed the water was light brown in colour and caused brown patches on the ceilings as well as the windows in both the living room and the bedroom. She also noticed mould growing on the living room ceiling. She initially suspected heavy condensation was causing the water ingress around the windows but it became clear the leaks were recurring.
In January 2024 the resident reported the leaks to the landlord and referred the matter again to our Service to say that the leaks had returned. She sought a survey of the property and the roof and asked to receive a copy of the survey report so she could understand what was causing the leak. Apart from the distress and inconvenience, she also reported that while the leaks remained unresolved, she could not proceed with selling the property as she would like to.
On 27 January 2024, after the resident called the landlord’s customer services team, it agreed to make an appointment for a roof inspection on 13 February 2024.
The landlord’s operatives attended on 13 February 2024 and confirmed there was water ingress in her bedroom and living room on the ceilings and around the windows when it rained. The landlord noted internally that the leaks only happened when it rained and the roof had been “felted”, it had “lead work installed” and overall had a new appearance. The landlord noted at the time that the operatives did not go onto the roof for a closer inspection as the communal window on the top floor (through which it would have been possible to access the roof) was stuck. The operatives nevertheless considered the leak was likely not due to a roofing issue and internally requested data on the last time the roof was renewed. The Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s records on when the roof was last renewed.
On 21 February 2024, the resident called the landlord on this issue and was told the roof was “brand new” and the operatives did not think there was a “roofing issue”, however, the landlord would investigate further and she could expect a callback in two days. The resident did not receive a callback. She contacted the landlord again on 27 February 2024 and was told her request would be forwarded to the “scheduling team” and she could expect a callback by 1 March 2024.
The resident raised a new formal complaint on 2 March 2024 to say she had had no update regarding the water leaks through the ceilings and windows, and she would like an appointment to be made as soon as possible. The landlord replied on 8 March 2024 by email to say an appointment had been fixed for 15 March 2024 “to carry out repairs”.
On 12 March 2024 the resident followed up with a further email to say a damp patch was developing on the external wall outside her flat at the front of the building and further damp was developing in her kitchen.
A plumber attended on 15 March 2024 to inspect the roof to determine the cause of the leak.
The resident further complained to the landlord by email on 18 March 2024 that she had had no update or explanation despite two visits from different parties (on 13 February and 15 March 2024) and she believed the roof leak remained unresolved.
On 22 March 2024, the landlord asked for an extension to provide the stage 1 complaint response, stating that it needed to obtain more information and confirm actions for repairs. The resident emailed back to express disappointment over the delays and the lack of surveying.
On 11 April 2024, the landlord’s roofers inspected the roof again. They were able to go onto the roof this time (as the communal window on the top floor was working again) and carried out temporary repairs. A contractor also attempted to attend the property to conduct a mould wash but could not gain access. The landlord asked the resident when she was next available for the mould wash to be carried out.
The resident replied by email on the same day that, as far as she was aware, the roof had not been fixed and she could only have the mould wash once the roof repairs had been carried out. She also explained that when she contacted the landlord’s customer services, they were confused as to whether the roof repairs had actually been done on 15 March 2024. She stated the operative who attended on 15 March 2024 left without explaining anything to her and this left her unclear what repairs had been done.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s second complaint on 16 April 2024, summarised as follows:
1. It acknowledged it should have progressed the roof repairs much sooner.
2. It explained roofers had completed temporary repairs on 11 April 2024 and the roof was watertight.
3. It further explained that her roof required a renewal and a section 20 notice (a notice for major works and consultation with tenants issued under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) would be sent by 18 April 2024.
4. The property maintenance team would arrange a mould wash before the roof renewal once the resident advised them of suitable dates.
5. It apologised for not acknowledging or responding to the resident’s complaint within the timeframe and explained this was due to the high level of complaints they were investigating.
6. It offered £300 to the resident in recognition of the distress, time and trouble the delays in repairs and in complaint handling has caused her.
The resident replied on 18 April 2024 to ask for a clarification on what caused the water to leak into the flat. The landlord explained by way of an email on 3 May 2024 that this was “due to the condition of the roof” and that its roofing contractors had decided that a renewal of the roof was needed. The resident asked for a further explanation on 5 May 2024 as she felt the landlord’s response had not adequately explained why there was an overflow of water that leaked through the windows. There is no evidence the landlord provided a further explanation.
On 30 April 2024 the landlord’s maintenance staff attended the property to carry out a mould wash but could not gain access as they did not make an appointment. The resident asked the landlord by email to arrange another mould wash.
On 20 May 2024, the contractor attended again and conducted the mould wash. According to the resident some of the mould was found behind the wallpaper and while she removed as much of the wallpaper as she could, the landlord’s maintenance staff suggested there might be more mould and she should ask for another survey. She also observed a long crack at the top of the wall above the living room window running to the corner of the wall, damp exterior walls, and the windows in her living room and bedroom were hard to open and close which she believed was due to the leaks.
The resident called the landlord on 23 May and 3 June 2024 to request another roof inspection and informed the landlord that there was water retention to the front elevation of the building due to the leak. On 24 June 2024 she emailed the landlord again to say she had received no response and repeated her concerns about the crack above the window, exterior damp and the jamming windows. The landlord replied on 27 June 2024 to say a roof inspection would be arranged for 3 July 2024. The resident sent several more emails to the landlord to ask for confirmation of this date and an estimation of when the exterior wall would dry.
The landlord noted internally on 2 July 2024 that the windows had been damaged by the water penetration and needed repointing.
The landlord’s repairs specialist and trade supervisor attended the property on 3 July 2024 to measure moisture levels in the living room and bedroom. They advised the resident that since the temporary repairs to the roof, there had been no further roof leaks or water ingress, and that the interior walls and ceilings were drying out and it should take around 4 to 6 weeks for this process to complete. They also informed the resident that once the pending roof renewal was complete, the landlord would re-attend to repair the internal damages caused by the leaks and do further damp meter readings to confirm the walls were dried out.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 17 July 2024, summarised as follows:
1. It acknowledged it delayed repairs and did not communicate well with the resident to provide reassurance on how it was going to rectify the leaks or keep her informed.
2. It aimed to begin the section 20 process for roof renewal soon and to complete the major roof works and remedial internal works by the end of September 2024.
3. It offered £400 on top of the previous £300 offered (bringing the total to £700) in recognition of the delays, lack in customer effort and the distress and inconvenience caused.
4. It had appointed a complaints commitment officer who would act as a point of contact for residents and adopted some service improvements, including introducing a new customer relationship management system, which was directly linked to the resident’s online portal. It stated this would allow it to better track complaint investigations and improve accountability.
The resident informed our Service in September 2024 that the roof renewal was still pending and had been planned for October 2024. She stated that as a result of the landlord’s delays and poor communication in resolving the leaks, she had not been able to sell the property as she would like to, and experienced frustration, distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation will focus on events starting from 19 July 2022 up until 17 July 2024, covering the landlord’s responses to two separate complaints brought by the resident. Those two complaints were about the same subject matter, namely the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the recurring leaks in her property. The landlord has provided its final responses to both complaints and the Ombudsman is therefore in a position to consider those two complaints together.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof and interior damp and mould.

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. The lease confirms this and further states the landlord should be responsible for all structural parts of the property, including “all walls bounding the premises”, the roof space, and the window frames (excluding the glass). The resident (who is the leaseholder) should be responsible for keeping in good repair the non-structural walls and partitions, the ceilings, the plastered coverings, and the glass of the windows (excluding the frames).
The landlord’s pre-inspection policy states that once the landlord identified an issue of potential damp and mould from a resident’s report, it should raise an order for a pre-inspection. The target time for a surveyor to complete the pre-inspection is within 10 working days of the order being raised on its systems. Its damp and mould policy states the administrator should “ask probing questions” of the resident, provide advice and be proactive, and the surveyor should complete a damp and mould proforma, provide advice and also be proactive. The policy does not state explicitly to whom the advice is provided, but it states the resident has a responsibility to “follow advice provided”. This policy in itself appears to be in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould (2021) which highlighted the importance of the landlord keeping residents informed on its strategy of resolving damp and mould situations.
However, based on the evidence, the landlord did not meet the requirements of these policies. There were multiple delays in responding to the resident’s reports of roof leaks, damp and mould. On some occasions, the landlord was unresponsive until the resident raised a formal complaint. The resident was also left in confusion several times about what was causing the leaks and what repairs the landlord would be carrying out.
Although the landlord has made a general acknowledgement of repair delays and poor communication in its stage 2 response to the resident, the Ombudsman considers whenever practicable, the landlord should identify and refer specifically to what went wrong with its communication, and when, as a way to increase transparency and put things right with the resident.
When the leaks first occurred in mid-July 2022, the resident reported this via the landlord’s website and then through emails, but the landlord did not arrange a pre-inspection by a surveyor until 14 September 2022. Although the surveyor identified that the roof gutters were blocked, the landlord did not carry out any follow-up works. The resident chased again over the next two months and the landlord explained that its system had not logged any report from the inspection and there had been a change in its contractors. It had to re-log a new job on its system. This indicates a failing to manage the repairs process and raise follow-on repairs which reflects an issue with information management and communication.
The landlord arranged a second inspection on 3 November 2022. There appeared to be confusion as different contractors were involved and they had different opinions as to whether scaffolding was needed. Ultimately it was decided that contractors could access the roof without scaffolding and repairs were completed on 16 to 18 January 2023, but scaffolding had already been put up unnecessarily. Later on the resident had to send in multiple requests for the landlord to strike this down. It remained unclear when this was completed and for how long the scaffolding stood.
The 5 to 6 months delay from mid-July 2022 until mid-January 2023 would likely have exacerbated the interior damp and mould issues. It would also have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
When the resident reported a recurrence of the leaks in January 2024, the landlord arranged an inspection on 13 February 2024. Operatives confirmed there was water ingress but initially thought there was no roofing issue, based on the new appearance of the roof (it is noted they were not able to examine the roof closely as they were not able to go onto the roof). While they reported back internally and requested information on the last time the roof was renewed, nothing else was done to keep the resident informed or to prevent further water ingress, until 11 April 2024. Operatives also did not share with the resident (until April 2024) the information that a roof renewal was needed. The delays from February to April 2024 were unreasonable and added to the distress and frustration experienced by the resident.
There are several occasions where the landlord appeared not to have provided appropriate advice to the resident. The landlord’s damp and mould policy stipulates that the surveyor and the landlord’s administrators have a duty to provide the resident with advice so that the resident could play her role in following advice to properly manage interior damp and mould. This is in alignment with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould, which highlights the importance of the landlord sharing with the resident its findings and strategy for resolution of damp and mould.
While the landlord noted internally in September 2022 that the first leaks were caused by gutters being blocked, there is no record of it sharing this with the resident. When the leaks recurred in late 2023/early 2024, the resident actively pursued the landlord for an explanation of what caused the leaks. The only answer the landlord provided (on 3 May 2024) was that the leak recurred due to “the condition of the roof” and that the roof needed a section 20 (major works) renewal. The resident’s request for further clarification was reasonable, but there was no record that the landlord responded, which the Ombudsman considers a failing in communication and providing advice.
It is possible the first inspections and repairs done in November 2022 did not thoroughly identify or remedy what issues there were with the roof. The lack of a survey report on the records makes it unclear what condition the roof was in as of April 2024, and whether the second round of leaks in November 2023 had the same causes as the first round of leaks in July 2022. This lack of transparency caused the resident distress and frustration, particularly as she was seeking to re-sell the property. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to share its photos and findings from the inspections on 15 March and 11 April 2024 with the resident so she can have a fuller picture of what caused the leaks.
Around May 2024 the resident reported some other issues that were possibly connected with the leak or contributed to the damp and mould, which the landlord does not appear to have responded to. These included: a crack on the living room wall above the window frame, damp on the external walls, and the jamming window frames, which the resident believed were damaged due to the water ingress.
Under the lease, the landlord is responsible for repairing the external and structural walls (all the walls bounding the premises) and the window frames, but there is no record of the landlord carrying out inspections or repairs for these issues.
While the landlord internally acknowledged on 2 July 2024 that the windows may need repointing, there was no record of this being communicated to the resident. A recommendation has therefore been made below for the landlord to carry out a further inspection of the structural walls (including the living room wall bearing the crack) and the window frames, and carry out further repairs as necessary.
There was also a recurring issue where the staff who attended the property for inspections or repairs often did not explain to the resident what they were attending for and what work they had carried out, leaving the resident in a state of uncertainty. She then had to go to the time and trouble of seeking clarification from the landlord’s customer service team. Contractors and operatives also attended several times without appointments in November 2022. This again indicates poor communication and information management.
It was positive that the landlord later set out clearly in its stage 2 response what actions it had taken to prevent further leaks, what the next steps were (roof renewal) and how soon they expect the roof repairs to take place (by end of September 2024). This appeared to be evidence of good practice and an attempt to keep the resident better informed.
There is no dispute that the roof leaks caused interior damage to the walls and ceilings of the living room and bedroom, leaving brown stains on the ceilings, walls and around the window frames. The landlord has informed the resident that in accordance with the lease, it was the resident’s responsibility to repair this interior damage and she should recover the costs thereof from her household insurance. The communication over this issue has at times been inconsistent, as the landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response of July 2024 that it was prepared to conduct remedial internal works, and it has also completed mould washes. The resident informs us that she had not claimed insurance for this. It is unclear whether she is covered by any household insurance, however, it is her responsibility to arrange this.
The Ombudsman considers that while ultimately according to the lease, it is the resident’s responsibility to conduct repairs for these areas (and recover expenses through insurance if she has bought this), the months-long delays on the part of the landlord in fixing the leaks and preventing further water ingress was a direct contributing factor to the interior wall and ceiling damage. It is reasonable for the landlord to conduct mould washes and offer compensation to the resident in recognition of this.
The landlord has offered the resident £1200 in total (£500 in the first complaint and £700 in the second complaint, inclusive of compensation for delays in complaint handling) in recognition of the distress, frustration, time and trouble she experienced throughout this process. The Ombudsman considers this to be reasonable redress in line with the severity of the impact to the resident under our remedy guidance.
Based on the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident, but will make recommendations below for the landlord to make further clarification to the resident on the roof condition and conduct further inspections on the areas for which the landlord is responsible.
The resident has explained to this Service while she accepted the £500 offer in the first complaint, she has not accepted the £700 offer in the second complaint. The landlord should re-make the offer for £700 to the resident on receipt of this report. A recommendation has been made below accordingly.
It is noted that the landlord originally said in its complaint response at stage 2 that it expected to complete roof renewal by the end of September 2024, but the resident advised us the works were scheduled for October 2024. This indicates further delays. While the roof renewal works may need to be treated as a separate complaint, the Ombudsman has made an recommendation below for the landlord to commit to keeping the resident informed on the roof renewal progress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, it should respond to the complaint within 10 working days; at stage 2 (the final stage) it should respond within 20 working days. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which member landlords are expected to adhere to.
The stage 1 complaint response of 8 September 2022 recognised there was a delay in inspection and repairs, but did not offer any explanation why this was not picked up earlier, nor offer any redress. It only informed the resident the landlord had scheduled in appointments and it considered there was no outstanding issue, therefore it would close the complaint. There was no information as to how to escalate the complaint to stage 2 should the resident remain dissatisfied. The Ombudsman considers this was not an adequate response. Further, it meant the resident did not have an opportunity to seek a review or further redress through the complaint process.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 30 January 2023 reviewed the stage 1 letter and apologised for the fact that the actions promised at stage 1 did not lead to completion of repairs, instead, the resident had to further chase for responsive repairs. It however repeated that it felt the stage 1 response was “appropriate”.
The Ombudsman considers that the stage 2 complaint process was an opportunity for the landlord to review its own stage 1 response, to acknowledge any problems with complaint handling and offer to put things right. This had not been done as of January 2023. However, the landlord offered £100 for the resident’s “patience” throughout the complaint process, which the Ombudsman considers reasonable.
When the leaks recurred in late 2023 to early 2024, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 16 April 2024 after a request for a time extension, and acknowledged that there were delays to the complaint response itself, for which the landlord offered £50. The Ombudsman considers this compensation appropriate.
On a positive note, the stage 2 complaint response of 17 July 2024 clearly acknowledges the landlord’s delays to repairs and poor communication. It set out clearly what had been done, what were the next steps in the section 20 process and provided a timeframe for future actions. It also set up a specific point of contact for the resident.
Overall, the Ombudsman considers the complaint responses of September 2022 and January 2023 lacked a fair acknowledgment of what went wrong. It is especially concerning that in September 2022, the resident was told her complaint had been shut down and she was not informed of the due process for complaint escalation.
However, the total amount of compensation offered for failings in complaint handling (£150) appears proportionate to the impact of distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. Overall the Ombudsman considers the landlord has made reasonable redress to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its failures in handling the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof and interior damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its failures in complaint handling.

Recommendations

On receipt of this report, the landlord should re-make the offer for £700 (in addition to the £500 already paid) to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience she experienced due to delays in repairs and poor communication.
In line with its responsibilities under the lease, the landlord should arrange and carry out a further inspection of the external walls (including the front elevation of the building) for damp and mould signs; the wall crack in the living room; and the window frames in the living room and the bedroom.
In line with its damp and mould policy, the landlord should share its photos and findings from the inspections on 15 March and 11 April 2024 with the resident so that the resident is clear about what is the condition of the roof and what was the cause of the recurring leaks in late 2023 to early 2024.
The landlord should write to the resident with an update on the current status of the section 20 roof renewal process and its planned schedule for completion. It should commit to keep the resident informed on this process, to adhere to the updated schedule for this work as far as practicable, and to provide reasonable written explanations to the resident where there may be further delays.