From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202322677)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322677

Hyde Housing Association Limited

21 March 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:
    1. Repairs to:
      1. Pipework.
      2. Electrics.
    2. Reports of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She lives at the property with her wife and both have health conditions. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow.
  2. The resident said there is a long history of repair issues at the property and has provided some complaint information dating back to 2013. It was not clear exactly when the resident raised her complaint in 2023. However, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 April 2023 and noted she had said there were “multiple repairs outstanding, including to the bathroom pipes, damp and mould, and faulty electrics.”
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 12 May 2023 but did not uphold the complaint. It said:
    1. The resident had not reported any repairs in the previous 6 months. It would therefore not investigate as its complaints policy said it would only investigate service failures in the 6 months before receipt of the complaint. However, a named staff member:
      1. Was “working with her to arrange repairs.”
      2. Will oversee the work to make sure everything is done.
      3. Will act as her point of contact.
    2. It offered £50 compensation for complaint handling failures (but did not say what the failures were).
  4. It was again not clear when the resident escalated the complaint. But she emailed the landlord and sought help from her local MP on 21 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 31 May 2023. It then sent its stage 2 complaint response, where the complaint was not upheld, on 3 July 2023, as follows:
    1. It had been unable to find any repairs raised.
    2. No issues or active leaks were identified in relation to the pipework.
    3. It said the electricity cost would not increase because an air flow unit was incorrectly fitted. And it could not find any repairs raised for faulty electrics in the last 6 months.
    4. Its damp and mould surveyor had advised air could not flow due to the amount of furniture in the house. It recommended the resident reduce furniture to help damp issues.
    5. There were issues raised that were outside of the stage 2 escalation. It said:
      1. It would deal with the resident’s complaint about staff members internally.
      2. It had raised a separate complaint regarding ongoing boiler issues and increased energy bills.
      3. Its insurance team had no case open regarding a claim for damaged personal property. And the resident would need to claim on her home contents insurance policy for items damaged by damp and mould.
      4. Roof repairs were completed in September 2020. This was a historic issue and would not be accepted as part of the complaint.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The evidence suggests that another damp survey was completed around 22 September 2023. An email to the landlord said:
    1. The only damp found was on the bathroom ceiling running along the eaves.
    2. This could be related to the extractor fan or pipework in that area.
  2. The resident continued to contact the named staff member to raise repairs.
  3. The landlord found 2 loft leaks at the beginning of February 2024. Further work to address condensation issues around the outer edge of the bungalow and moisture in the loft was identified in March 2024. It was not clear whether this has been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In November 2023, we carried out an investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. This allows us to conduct investigations beyond individual complaints to establish whether there is evidence of a systemic failing within a landlord. The investigation looked at complaints determined by our service between April 2023 and June 2024. We identified common points of failure such as with repairs handling, damp and mould, and complaints handling. The report made recommendations for improvements to be made and was published in December 2024. The events in this case took place before and during the period covered by the P49 report. Some of the findings are relevant to this case. We have not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those already made in the P49 report. Hyde engaged extensively as part of this investigation and have taken action to make improvements in these key areas, which has been welcomed by us.
  2. The resident has raised concerns and complaints about many issues with the property. These included with the quality of the finish in the kitchen and lounge, landlord staff allegedly damaging items in the loft, damaged bricks, a pest infestation, a broken kitchen hob, boiler issues (and subsequent increase in gas bills), cancelled repairs, staff conduct, and items damaged by damp and mould. The landlord addressed some of these issues in its complaints process. However, there was no evidence of all the issues being raised consistently. The resident may wish to raise further complaints with the landlord or follow-up complaints already raised.
  3. The resident also told us about the impact the condition of the property had on her health. We do not doubt these comments and empathise with her situation. But we also cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
  4. In a call with us on 23 January 2025, the resident said there had been issues at the property dating back 14 years. In line with our Scheme, we will only assess the landlord’s handling of events dating back to April 2022, approximately 1 year before the formal complaint was raised. Anything that happened before that date is considered for context but is not assessed or determined as part of this investigation. Therefore the scope of this investigation will be from 1 April 2022 to when the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 3 July 2023.

Landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. The landlord’s repair policy has several different timescales for completing repair works. For emergency repairs it says it will attend to these within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. For routine repairs it will aim to complete works within 20 working days. The landlord also has major repairs for which it does not give a specific timescale for completion. But says it will undertake as per its stock investment procedure.

Pipework

  1. The repair records showed repairs raised to “fix a leak to pipework under the bath and re-route basin waste to join bath waste due to possibility of leak inside cavity leaking causing damp” on 13 September 2022. The repair records note the repair was completed on 1 November 2022. This was outside of the routine repair timescale which would represent a failing. However, the records also said there was no access to the property. Given it was unclear exactly what happened, it is difficult to assess either way whether there was a failing.
  2. The landlord attended in line with its policy in relation to a boiler repair and raised follow-on work for pipework to be adjusted in January 2023. The evidence suggests repairs were completed on 15 February 2023. This was in line with the landlord’s routine repair timescale.
  3. A repair was raised on 24 March 2023 for the drainage pipework. The landlord attended on 27 March 2023 to complete a CCTV survey. It was not clear what the outcome was, although it attended in line with its policy timescales.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord and her MP on 12 May 2023. She said there were boiler issues, the pipework was leaking, and her property including furniture and clothes were damaged. The landlord replied 3 days later and said it had booked a boiler inspection. But did not comment on the pipework or damaged items. The evidence does not show a boiler inspection was raised, which represents a failing. It would also have reasonable to arrange a repair or inspection for the pipework, however there was no evidence it did so.
  5. The resident emailed again on 21 May 2023 and sent a detailed list of outstanding repairs including the leaking pipework. She said:
    1. Pipework from the kitchen to lounge radiator leaked and needed to be replaced.
    2. Pipework that ran behind the cooker near to an electrical socket and under the kitchen sink leaked. She said she had requested this pipework be replaced multiple times over the previous 12 years.
    3. She wanted all pipework from the bathroom leading through the bedroom wall to the radiator replaced as it leaked.
    4. She wanted all pipework from the loft to the sink, toilet and radiators replaced as they leaked.
    5. All pipework in the loft needed insulating.
    6. The named staff member had raised repairs for pipework in the bathroom and radiator. 
    7. The resident believed 2 staff members had previously blocked repairs being carried out.
  6. The landlord emailed the named staff member the next day in response to the resident’s detailed list sent 21 May 2023. It asked which repairs had been agreed and which had not. No evidence was provided as to whether he responded. The landlord also attempted to attend in relation to the repair the named staff member had raised (point f. above) on 25 May 2023. However, it was not clear whether the repair was completed.
  7. There was then no evidence to show the landlord chased its named staff member for a response at all, which represents a failing. At the end of June 2023 the resident asked for any repairs to be postponed due to ill health. There was no evidence of pipework repairs being raised up to the stage 2 response. The landlord said it had spoken to “relevant team members” in relation to the pipework in its stage 2 response. It was not clear whether this meant the named staff member. However, it said there were no issues with the pipework and no active leaks at the time of the response. It then explained to the resident it would not move kitchen pipework. This was reasonable given there were no repairs raised for the pipework and managed her expectations.

Electrics

  1. The resident had a positive input ventilation (PIV) system installed on 12 April 2022. A repair was raised on 13 July 2022 as the resident said air was cold at night but hot during the day. The landlord raised 2 repairs. The first was completed promptly the next day. It noted “the system was stuck on and its contractor could not attend until 22 July 2022.” It was reasonable for the landlord to complete a temporary repair. However, the second repair (to be carried out by a contractor) was not marked as completed until 2 November 2022. Although there are no records to say what work, if any, was carried out. This was a lengthy delay and was outside the timescale for a routine repair, which represents a failing.
  2. In the resident’s email of 21 May 2023, she said the PIV had been installed incorrectly which caused it to malfunction and blow hot air in warm weather. She said she wanted it replaced. However, there was no other evidence she raised PIV repairs between November 2022 and her email. The landlord’s stage 2 response addressed the resident’s concerns about her increased electricity bills. She believed her bills were higher due to an incorrect installation. The Ombudsman finds service failure due to the failure to acknowledge the delayed repair. An order of £100 compensation has been made.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. The landlord should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure (November 2022) sets out that it will:
    1. Complete a property inspection where it is unable to identify the root cause.
    2. Ensure it raises the necessary repairs or referrals to its stock investment team.
    3. Post-inspect repairs carried out due to damp and mould issues. And ensure it schedules a follow-up visit within 6 months.
  3. The repair records showed there was a possibility of a leak causing damp on 13 September 2022. However, there was no record of any inspection arranged until 17 February 2023, 5 months later, which was a failing. The repair records show a damp and mould survey was raised, attended and closed on 17 February 2023. However, no copy of a survey or any photos were provided to us. Therefore we cannot be sure what action (if any) was taken.
  4. The resident continued to raise the issue of damp and mould at the property in April and May 2023 when she escalated her complaint. On 21 May 2023 she said:
    1. There was mould in the lounge.
    2. A kitchen wall was “black with mould.”
    3. She had been told property damage was “due to lifestyle” when she believed there was a major structural issue.
    4. Damp would rise in the front bedroom and the carpet was damaged by mould.
    5. The master bedroom decoration was damaged by mould.
    6. There was plastering and mould damage in the hallway.
  5. As already mentioned, there was no evidence the named staff member replied to the landlord’s email as to what repairs had been authorised. However, the landlord also failed to take any action in relation to the reports of mould in April and May 2023. This was a failing.
  6. The stage 2 issued in July 2023 said “due to the amount of furniture… in the rooms… it is not allowing air to flow through the room and is likely to cause the issue.” It was not reasonable the landlord took no action to the resident’s concerns in April, May and July 2023. It would have been reasonable to arrange another inspection or obtain a second opinion. The landlord eventually completed another damp inspection on 22 September 2023. This was 7 months after the first inspection. This was an unreasonable delay and length of time to leave the resident in a property with damp and mould. The Ombudsman finds maladministration and compensation of £500 is ordered. This is to reflect distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of action, particularly given the landlord was aware of the resident’s health conditions.

Repairs summary

  1. Our P49 report found there were issues with the landlord’s response to reports of leaks, damp and mould, with repairs not being completed. Other issues in this theme included poor communication, a failure to mitigate impact, and failure to assist the resident with an insurance claim. The landlord identified its need to reduce repairs times and has worked on this, which is a positive step.
  2. The landlord should accept responsibility, monitor any repairs, ensure works orders were raised, and ensure the repairs were completed in accordance with its policies. Instead, it was left to the resident and named staff member. It was unreasonable to expect one named staff member to be the sole contact and deal with all repairs. It should have ensured the resident was aware repairs should be logged with its repairs team.
  3. It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives, and its actions in response. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. Neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records and this could result in unfairness to the resident. We have determined several cases over recent months and found similar record-keeping failings, particularly in regard to repairs. Service improvement orders have been made as part of those determinations, including to self-assess against our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management. Therefore no similar orders will be made. The record keeping in this case was reasonable, however there were a number of appointments where there was no record of what happened. It has therefore not been possible to fully understand what action was taken at every stage of the handling of the repair, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation.

Complaint handling

  1. The stage 1 complaint response said the resident had not reported any repairs in the previous 6 months prior to 12 May 2023. However the repair log shows at least 24 repairs raised at that time. The stage 1 response was also very brief and seemed to pass the repairs responsibility to the named staff member.
  2. The stage 2 response said it had “spoken to relevant team members” in relation to the pipework and electrics. But it did not clarify when or who, which would have provided additional detail to the resident.
  3. As highlighted in the P49 report, there was inadequate redress and a poorly handled apology. The responses did not acknowledge any failings and it was unreasonable to not consider compensation in either complaint response (apart from the £50 offered in stage 1 for complaint handling itself). The Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling and £200 compensation should be paid (less the £50 compensation if this has already been paid).

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to pipework.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to electrics.
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
  4. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord is to:
    1. Pay the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £1,000, made up of:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling of the pipework repairs;
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of electric repairs.
      3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of reports of damp and mould.
      4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling.
    2. Arrange a damp and mould survey of the property. Within 2 weeks of this being completed, a copy of this survey should be provided to the Ombudsman and the resident along with a schedule of works for any necessary repairs identified (if any) to stop damp and mould growth.
    3. Contact the resident to identify what repairs remain outstanding (if any) separate to the damp and mould. Any works identified should be raised in the timescales specified by the landlord’s repairs policy. If there are repairs the landlord will not carry out, it should clearly explain the reason why to the resident.
    4. Provide the resident with the details of its insurer/insurance team so she can contact them and discuss whether to make an insurance claim for any of her personal belongings which have been damaged as a result of damp and mould in the property.
    5. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service.