Hyde Housing Association Limited (202407295)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407295

Hyde Housing Association Limited

23 May 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. reports of a leak.
   2. reports of damp and mould.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a low rise block. Her tenancy commenced in January 2024 and she has mobility and health issues including asthma.
3. The landlord attended to a leak from a neighbour’s loft space on 3 May 2024. On 15 May 2024 the resident reported mould on the internal lounge wall. The landlord undertook a mould treatment on 21 May 2024.
4. The resident made a formal complaint on 27 June 2024. She said neither the lounge wall nor the leak had been properly dealt with. She said the landlord had found damp and informed her a survey was needed but that there would be an 8-week delay. She added that she had decorated her wall in April 2024 but when it rained this became wet and black mould appeared on it. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication saying that a surveyor attended to do a damp reading which had been done previously. She wanted the leak fixed and her lounge wall made good.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 July 2024. It said it cleaned the affected mould area on 21 May 2024. It added it could not find any evidence of failings in its communication with the resident and it was unable to confirm the location of the leak.
6. The landlord completed a damp and mould survey on 17 July 2024 and observed elevated damp readings. It advised further investigation was required. On 25 August 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She reiterated her concerns about the damp wall and black mould and felt that no further action had taken place. She also said the leak had not been resolved and wanted this fixed before winter.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 September 2024. It upheld the complaint. It accepted it did not communicate with her nor provide assurances on how it would rectify the damp and mould. It said its surveyor attended on 17 July 2024 and a further investigation was raised for 17 September 2024. It apologised for this delay. It advised it would review the damp and mould in a further 6 months. The landlord said there were no further reports of leaks from her since its attendance in April 2024, but it would investigate the leak on 17 September 2024. It recognised that it should have moved forward quicker and apologised for the delays and inconvenience caused. It offered compensation of £100 for her effort in raising damp and mould and delays in identifying the causes.
8. In the resident’s referral to the Ombudsman, she remained unhappy as she said the damp and mould persisted and she was unable to use her lounge. She also said it was unclear if the leak had been resolved and that the landlord had not communicated with her about the repairs. In May 2025, she confirmed the wall was still covered in black mould. As a resolution, she wanted the damp and mould resolved and further compensation.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

9. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that damp and mould affected her health and that she experienced frequent chest infections. It is beyond the expertise of the service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. Where there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence including an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and, should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused, and this investigation will consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and obligations and whether it acted fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak

10. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property including outside pipes, the roof and inside walls. Once the landlord has notice of a repair, it should carry out the repair within a reasonable time. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure sets out its repair categories. Emergency repairs must be attended to within 4 hours and it must complete a “make safe” repair within 24 hours. For routine repairs, which the landlord refers to as “anytime repairs”, the landlord will ensure an appointment is arranged within 20 working days of the resident reporting the repair.
11. The resident advised this Service that the leak affecting her lounge began in May 2024. The Ombudsman has seen a repair was raised on the landlord’s communal repairs history log on 2 May 2024. This was attended on 3 May 2024 where the landlord found there was no leaking pipework and noted the report stated the leak occurred during heavy rainfall.
12. It was not unreasonable that the landlord believed at this time that this was a roofing issue and it thought that it was caused where a pipe exited the roof but required further investigation. The landlord attended again on 31 May 2024 where it carried out an inspection inside the loft space and found no signs of water ingress from the roof line. Its external assessment found no missing tiles and the lead collar on pipework was intact.
13. These were reasonable and proportionate steps to take in tracing the leak. Yet, it is unclear what actions the landlord intended to take after. It did not appear to take any further action until the resident made her complaint in late June 2024. This caused an avoidable delay which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
14. In the resident’s complaints she explained the leak had not been located or fixed and it persisted when it rained. She added the lounge wall was frequently wet then dried out resulting in mould. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it was unable to confirm the location of the leak. This is concerning as despite the landlord having attended on 3 May 2024 regarding a leak from the roof which notes stated “affecting other properties”, it does not appear that it considered that the resident could have been experiencing her leak issue from the same source.
15. The resident advised the Service that the landlord’s operative attended her property on 3 May 2024 to inspect the lounge wall, however this does not feature in the landlord’s repair logs. This is consistent with her formal complaint as she said when she spoke with the landlord’s customer services in June 2024, they advised they could not find anything on their system regarding this.
16. This likely affected the landlord’s ability to determine what had happened and when, which is indicative of poor record keeping. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. In this case, the record keeping has hindered the landlord in being able to fully ascertain what took place and, therefore, the full extent of the detriment.
17. The resident asked to escalate her complaint as she had not been advised on whether the leak had been resolved, and her wall remained wet. In the landlord’s stage 2 final response, it failed to recognise the delays in resolving the leak, and did not offer any compensation. In this case, the landlord did not take ownership of resolving the leak which caused avoidable delays. Despite the resident completing the complaints process and multiple attendances to the property, this did not move the repair forward. The landlord’s response did not adequately reflect the level of detriment the resident experienced.
18. The landlord did however act fairly by meeting its commitments in its stage 2 response where it said its surveyor would attend to investigate the leak on 17 September 2024. Yet, it is unclear what the outcome of this visit was and any follow up actions. The landlord also acted fairly by offering the resident a paint pack to help towards redecoration of her wall. The resident said she did not want this as the leak had not been fixed, and she could not use her hands as she had previously had 2 strokes. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to discuss any support available with the resident to take the decoration works forward once it is satisfied the leak has stopped.
19. Additionally, we have seen the landlord attended on 16 September 2024 to carry out a repair internally as it believed some water was tracking into loft space from vent pipes. However, it found the pipe in question was at the front of the property and it could not be easily accessed. The landlord’s records indicate this would be outsourced to a contractor, but it is unclear from the landlord’s submissions what came about from this. Subsequently, the landlord attended in October 2024 where it checked the resident’s wall unit access panel behind the cooker to check for any leaks inside this void/possible stack pipe but found there were none. They did note the outer front wall had wet patches which were near the resident’s power sockets in her lounge.
20. On 3 December 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining its operative had been dealing with the roofing issues and attended at various times. It advised it had a job with its roofing contractor and was waiting for permission to carry out repair due to the party wall belonging to a private homeowner neighbour. It also advised it had chased to see if the party wall agreement was signed by the neighbour and arranged a joint surveyor visit for the 12 December 2024 to assess scope of works needed. While these were appropriate steps, it is unclear why the landlord did not arrange these sooner and there is limited information to suggest the landlord acted with the necessary urgency considering an intermittent leak was unresolved over 7 months later. This was a considerable amount of time.
21. The landlord attended, as it said it would, on 12 December 2024 and believed the causes of water ingress to the internal wall was due to an issue with leak work to the parapet allowing water ingress, and recommended works including glazing to the bedroom window, replacing a cupboard in the kitchen and socket in the resident’s lounge. We have seen the landlord explained to the resident that its surveyor raised a job for the bedroom window, but this was cancelled by the resident on 24 December 2024, and the landlord rebooked this for 18 February 2025.
22. Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak was poor and it failed to resolve the leak within its repair timescales, having been on notice as early as May 2024. It appears the job remains outstanding in May 2025. The landlord missed a number of opportunities to resolve the leak sooner and did not effectively communicate with the resident about the delays. This led to her chasing the landlord and contacting the Ombudsman for assistance which necessitated time and trouble. This has been considered as part of the orders, as well as the fact that the leak was intermittent and only occurred during heavy rainfall.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

23. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
24. On receiving reports of damp and mould, the landlord should arrange an inspection, investigate to determine the cause/s, carry out a risk assessment and, if necessary, undertake remedial repairs within a reasonable timescale that will deal with the cause and consequences of damp and mould – not simply treat the symptoms. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
25. The resident initially reported damp on 15 May 2024 and the landlord acted appropriately by arranging a mould treatment on 21 May 2024. This was a satisfactory initial approach and the mould wash took place within a reasonable time. However, as the leak was not resolved, the resident continued to report issues with damp in June 2024. The landlord responded in its stage 1 response stating it had not received any further communication regarding the damp and it did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
26. Shortly after the stage 1 response, the landlord acted fairly by conducting a damp and mould survey on 17 July 2024. Yet, it is unclear why the landlord did arrange this sooner in May or June 2024. The survey of July 2024 found the general condition of the property including bricks, windows and floor was satisfactory. But did find elevated damp readings observed to the lounge wall, above the radiator and sockets. They considered further investigation was needed and 6 months was required until the next monitoring inspection.
27. However no further actions were taken by the landlord until the resident chased in August 2024. The surveyor did not appear to arrange any follow up actions or repairs. This was inappropriate and caused time and trouble for the resident who wanted the mould dealt with. The landlord raised a work order on 27 August 2024 but considered the appointment was no longer required, and an internal note few days later suggested a damp and mould survey was outsourced to a contractor.
28. In the landlord’s final response it acted fairly by apologising for not reassuring the resident how it would deal with the damp and mould following the attendance from the area surveyor. It committed to carrying out an investigation on 17 September 2024. The Ombudsman has seen the landlord did attend on this date; however it is unclear what if any actions were agreed.
29. A further damp and mould survey took place on 12 December 2024 which found extensive areas of roof pointing missing that required replacement. They believed the causes of damp and mould were water ingress to front elevation due to condition of pointing and water ingress to internal wall due to issue with lead work to the parapet. They also recommended actions included glazing to bedroom window, replacing cupboard in kitchen and socket in lounge. It is unclear why these issues were not identified in the earlier July 2024 survey. There was an avoidable delay in getting the root cause identified as well as recommended works arranged. By not doing so, a vulnerable resident was left in damp conditions for a prolonged period of time. While it is recognised the landlord made efforts to resolve these issues by arranging job in December 2024 and February 2025, there is no evidence that the works have been completed to date.
30. Landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle damp and mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. However, this did not happen in this case.
31. Additionally, the Ombudsman has not seen the landlord carried out a risk assessment nor did the surveys consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. The potential detriment of damp and mould to a resident’s health and wellbeing has been highlighted in the Ombudsman’s October 2021 Spotlight report entitled “Damp and mould: It’s not lifestyle” and it is the case that, the longer it is left untreated, the more damaging it can be to a person’s health. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, damp and mould growth is classified as a hazard. In this case, the resident is disabled and has asthma.
32. Overall, the continuous experience for damp and mould was inconvenient for the resident. Additionally, the landlord did not undertake a risk assessment nor did it offer any alternative solutions such as dehumidifiers in 2024 when it was made aware that the damp issue persisted. While the landlord offered various mould washes, it did not raise surveyor repairs promptly and failed to monitor the situation appropriately. Further, there were considerable delays in a lasting treatment of the damp and mould and the resident lived with this for a prolonged period and she confirmed the mould was still present on the wall in May 2025.
33. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards from £100 compensation should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which adversely affected the resident. While the landlord offered compensation of £100 in final response in respect of delays in identifying causes and for customer effort, this did not go far enough considering the delay and the resident’s circumstances. This has been considered as part of the orders.
34. In this investigation, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record keeping. We have not, however, made any further orders for the landlord to improve this. This is because the Ombudsman published a special report on Hyde Housing Association in December 2024 where we made recommendations regarding Knowledge and Information Management. We have since seen the landlord has taken steps to improve this.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

Orders and Recommendation

Orders

37. Within 28 calendar days of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £500 made up of:
       1. £300 in recognition of its failing in handling reports of the leak.
       2. A further £200 in recognition of its failing in handling reports of damp and mould.

This must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against a rent account.

38. Within 56 calendar days of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Conduct a survey.
    2. Complete any outstanding recommended work as identified in December 2024.
    3. Confirm to both the resident and us that the leak has been resolved.
    4. Establish whether there remains a damp and mould issue, and share its findings with both the resident and us and, if follow on works are needed, when these are likely to start.
    5. Endeavour to complete these works and share evidence with us within 56 days from the date of our report.
    6. Liaise with us ahead of the deadline if for any reason, the deadline is unmanageable.
39. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman within the timescales above to confirm that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendation

40. The landlord should contact the resident once it is satisfied the leak has stopped to discuss any support available to assist the resident to take the decoration works forward.