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

Bolton at Home Limited (202426183)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426183

Bolton at Home Limited

27 June 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:
    1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, including repairs to the gutters.
    2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy of the landlord with landlord A which commenced on 27 April 2020. Her property is a 2–bedroom, mid–terrace house. Her next-door neighbour is an owner-occupier. On 1 April 2024, landlord A merged with Landlord B (the landlord).
  2. In February 2023, the landlord installed a damp proof course to resolve rising damp. The damp contractor also noted water ingress from a leaking gutter causing mould in the vestibule. A further inspection of the front bedroom, bathroom, and vestibule, conducted in July 2023, recommended the landlord monitor damp patches in the front bedroom wall, and if necessary, re-render the wall.
  3. Following further reports of damp and humidity, on 19 April 2024, the landlord’s mould contractor surveyed the property. They found mould and condensation in multiple rooms which they attributed to a lack of adequate ventilation. This was due to no extractor fan in the kitchen while the bathroom fan was not operated by its humidity sensor. The mould contractor also found high moisture levels from readings on a meter. It recommended a specialist contractor assess the cause.
  4. On 14 May 2024, the resident submitted a complaint. She chased up damp and mould works by the mould contractor. She further stated there was an outstanding issue of water ingress due to her gutters not adjoining properly with the next-door neighbour’s gutter as they were different types.
  5. On 5 June 2024, the landlord sent the stage 1 response:
    1. It accepted it delayed in installing a new kitchen fan, and did not update the resident.
    2. It noted it had cleared the gutter and would monitor it.
    3. It noted the resident had refused access for the mould contractor to clean the mould, which was intended to remove risk.
    4. It stated its surveying contractor would contact the resident directly about her request for a further inspection on 12 June 2024.
    5. It apologised for the resident not receiving a call back when she chased repairs.
    6. It offered £100 compensation comprising £50 for the delays in repairing the kitchen fan and servicing the bathroom fan, and £50 for a failure to communicate.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 12 July 2024. She said the damp smell in the property remained and the gutter was not repaired, therefore it still leaked and caused damp.
  7. After sending a holding response on 9 August 2024, the landlord sent the stage 2 response on 20 September 2024. It found the following:
    1. The resident had refused the works at stage 1 as she wanted it to treat the mould, not just paint over it.
    2. Subsequently, its mould contractor inspected again on 2 September 2024. They then treated mould and damp in the vestibule on 9 September 2024.
    3. It inspected on 20 September 2024 and found no mould or damp.
    4. However, it would monitor the front wall over winter and revisit on a rainy day to check for water ingress from the gutters.
    5. The gutter union of the neighbouring property did not meet its gutter, so it cleared the gutter.
    6. It would offer compensation of £150 comprising:
      1. £50 for the delays to the repair and service of fans in the property.
      2. £50 for its failure to communicate the repairs.
      3. £50 for the delay in response.
  8. On 7 October 2024, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She contended there was rising damp throughout her property, and noted the landlord had inspected on a sunny day. On 24 February 2025, she advised us she still believed there was rising damp and there was still water ingress from the gutter.

Assessment and findings

Damp and Mould

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory obligation to “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the Premises including:
    1. 2.3.1 drains, gutters and external pipes;
    2. 2.3.2 the roof;
    3. 2.3.3 outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, … and window frames including necessary external painting and decorating;
    4. 2.3.4 internal walls, floors and ceilings, …;
    5. 2.3.5 chimneys, chimney stacks and flues …;
    6. 2.3.7 plasterwork;”
  2. The landlord commissioned a specialist damp contractor to inspect areas of the property where the resident had reported a damp, musty smell. These were the bathroom, front bedroom, and front door entrance. The landlord has not provided a copy of the damp contractor’s report. However, a later report from the damp contractor and the landlord’s internal correspondence confirms the damp contractor attended on 11 November 2022 and recommended:
    1. a new damp proof course to all walls in the lounge.
    2. cleaning the gutters and repairing the hopper head on the front elevation. They also noted poor design of the joint connecting the resident’s gutter with the neighbour’s. This was allowing rainwater to miss the gutter to the resident’s property and pour down the wall.
    3. installing a drip groove to the underside of front bedroom and pointing a small area on the front elevation.
    4. installing a fan to the kitchen.
    5. asking a bricklayer to look at the chimney in the loft.
  3. The damp contractor, after agreeing access with the resident, installed a new damp proof course in February 2023. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the expert opinion of approved contractors. In this instance, it took appropriate action to prevent dampness from rising damp. However, the damp contractor indicated there may also be water ingress from other causes. The landlord’s repair records show it raised orders to trace and remedy a roof leak on 9 November 2022 and 11 January 2023. The contractors were to specifically check the ducting to a fan in the loft and also the gutters and fascia. However, there is no evidence that the inspections took place. In fact, the records show the landlord automatically closed the job on 20 April 2023 before the contractors attended.
  4. There is no evidence that the landlord installed a drip groove, pointed the front elevation, or maintained the gutter, as recommended by the damp contractor, at this time. It also did not seek to install a fan in the kitchen, which the damp contractor had also identified. The landlord did raise an order on 13 March 2023 to overhaul and renew the bathroom extractor fan. However, again, there is no evidence it completed the work at this time; the repair records show that it automatically closed the job order on 20 April 2023. As such, while the landlord installed a damp proof course, it did not take all recommended steps at that time to prevent dampness in the resident’s property. Nor did it provided good reason for not following all the recommendations.
  5. On 21 June 2023, the resident reported another damp smell in the bathroom and front bedroom. She also said the vestibule and front bedroom felt humid. On the same day, the landlord raised an order for a contractor to check and clear the front and rear gutters, and unblock the downpipe if necessary. The contractor completed the works on 5 July 2023, according to the landlord’s repair records. It was appropriate, in line with the damp contractor’s recommendation, the landlord cleared the gutter. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not proactively clear the gutter after the damp contractor’s recommendation; instead, it acted reactively after it received a further report of damp. Moreover, the damp contractor had identified the underlying issue was a fault with the gutter joint; however, the landlord failed to address and remedy this.
  6. The landlord also recalled its damp contractor which was reasonable as the resident’s reports indicated their work had not resolved the issues in the property. The damp contractor reinspected on 10 July 2023. They found no high moisture readings in bathroom and vestibule. They believed 2 damp patches to the front bedroom wall would dry out as they understood the gutter joint had been repaired. The damp contractor recommended the landlord monitor the wall to see if it dried out. If not, it suggested it remove plaster in the affected areas and re-render the wall. In this case, there is no evidence the landlord monitored the wall as recommended. Therefore, it was not clear whether the repair condition of the wall was improving or not, which was unreasonable. In fact, as the contractor’s recommendation was based on the mistaken understanding that the gutter joint had been repaired, the landlord should have been proactive in monitoring the issue.
  7. The resident on 31 January 2024 reported damp around the front door and a leak from the ceiling above and the living room. The landlord visited the neighbouring property the following day and on 20 February 2024, but no-one answered on either occasion. It raised an order on 5 February 2024 for a roofing contractor to clean the gutters, check whether the roof was watertight, and repair the gutter connection with the neighbouring property. The roofing contractor attended on 28 February 2024. It reported it had cleared the guttering, but the resident’s property had PVCU guttering while the neighbour’s property had iron guttering. Because of the different materials and poor joint design, the gutter may leak again. It also said the issue could be resolved if the neighbour installed PVCU gutters. The Ombudsman notes the roofing contractor’s assessment of the gutter joint was consistent with the damp contractor’s assessment, and they highlighted the gutter may leak again. This made it all the more important for the landlord to agree necessary works with the neighbour. However, it did not again seek to make contact with the neighbour at this time which was a failure.
  8. The resident had made another report of a smell after heavy rain on 16 February 2024. She advised a wall by the front door was wet and had mould, and that her carpet and wallpaper was damaged. She also reported she and her daughter had breathing difficulties. The landlord arranged another joint visit with its damp contractor, on 20 February 2024. Its chronology of the case states that they found no further issues. However, there is no evidence of that the landlord kept a report of the inspection from the time it was carried out. Therefore, the landlord did not keep the necessary supporting evidence to justify its findings here of no further issues. The resident had specifically reported damp and mould around the front door. It was particularly unreasonable the landlord did not keep a record to confirm it had inspected this area. The damp contractor could also have checked the effectiveness of the works they had completed, one year on.
  9. On 21 February 2024, the landlord raised a job order to install a humidistat fan in the kitchen. This was in line with the damp contractor’s recommendations; however, this was 15 months after the damp contractor informed the landlord that the fan was required. The landlord’s later internal correspondence indicates that the resident declined a kitchen fan due to the trunking required.
  10. On 4 April 2024, the resident reported she had now been diagnosed with asthma. She advised she could not sleep in her bedroom due to the humidity. She also advised the living room ceiling was wet. On 16 April 2024, the landlord raised an order for a specialist mould contractor to check the property for mould. By this point, landlord B had become the resident’s landlord. Its Damp, Condensation and Mould policy recognised the need to “raise a repair or inspect the property first to better understand the cause of the problem”.
  11. When raising the order for the specialist mould contractor, the landlord highlighted “There is already a spot identified by the front door due to water ingress from the gutter.” This confirms that the landlord accepted works to the gutter were necessary in order to prevent water ingress and damp.
  12. On 19 April 2024, the mould contractor submitted its report which revealed problems with mould and condensation in multiple rooms. They identified ventilation issues and recommended the landlord install a fan in the kitchen. They also recommended the landlord service the bathroom fan, so the inbuilt humidity sensor activated it, not the light. The mould contractor also recommended a mould treatment on a wall in the second bedroom and on 2 walls in the porch. The landlord approved their quote for the works.
  13. The mould contractor attended the resident’s property on 17 May 2024. They serviced the bathroom fan and installed a kitchen fan. However, the resident declined the mould treatment.
  14. On 20 May 2024, the landlord informed the resident another contractor, a surveying contractor, would contact her to arrange an inspection. This was to confirm if the works by the mould contractor had resolved any damp and mould issue. If not, the surveying contractor would identify if further works were required. It was prudent that the landlord sought another contractor to inspect given the resident had declined the mould treatment. In any event, the mould contractor had also noted “We also found high moisture reading from protimeter tests conducted in the property which should be assessed by the appropriate specialist to determine causes and recommend relevant remedial actions.” Therefore, it was consistent with this that the landlord commissioned another contractor to survey the property. However, when the surveying contractor attended on 12 June 2024, it could not gain access.
  15. The landlord recalled the mould contractor. The mould contractor by agreement with the resident reinspected on 2 September 2024. They recommended mould treatment to 2 areas of a wall in the first bedroom and 2 walls in the vestibule. It again observed “Protimeter tests conducted returned high moisture readings in multiple areas which should be assessed by the appropriate specialist to determine causes and recommend relevant remedial actions.” The mould contractor “also noticed signs of possible water ingress” in the vestibule and run marks on a wall. Therefore, in itself, the reinspection by the mould contractor was not sufficient as they themselves recommended another specialist contractor investigate high moisture readings.
  16. The mould contractor completed the mould wash in the vestibule and bedroom on 9 September 2024. The landlord therefore took appropriate action, in line with the mould contractor’s recommendation, to reduce the immediate risk from mould. The resident stated her complaint was unresolved as she could still smell damp. Consequently, a senior staff member at the landlord conducted a further inspection on 20 September 2024. They used 2 tests to measure the moisture on the downstairs wall. Given the resident’s further report, and the mould contractor’s recommendation to investigate further areas of high moisture, it was appropriate that the landlord inspect further, using instruments that provided objective measurements. Nonetheless, this inspection was not adequately prompt as the mould contractor’s original recommendation was in April 2024.
  17. At the inspection of 20 September 2024, the landlord found there were no signs of mould, as this had been treated, or condensation, and no visual signs of damp. It noted the front wall was not completely dry, but below the carbide speedy test threshold. It therefore recommended monitoring during winter and revisiting on a rainy day to confirm the gutters were working. The decision to continue monitoring was reasonable as this would enable it to better understand the extent of moisture in the property and causal factors.
  18. However, as noted in stage 2 response, the landlord was aware there was a fault with the guttering where it joined with the neighbour’s guttering. After the attempted visit on 20 February 2024 to the neighbour, the landlord only attempted a further visit on 27 June 2024. Again, it received no answer, but it failed to take any further action to ensure the repair of the gutter, such as writing to the neighbour. This showed a lack of urgency in resolving the potential of damp caused by instances of leaking gutters, which was unreasonable. It missed opportunities to clarify issues such as responsibility and access for the gutter repairs.
  19. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that since the resident’s complaint, it has written to the neighbour. On 16 April 2025, the back gutter was replaced entirely, and the union with the front gutter was remade. We have therefore not made an order for repairs to the gutter. However, the delay by the landlord in repairing the gutter and gutter joints remains.
  20. In summary, the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord has commissioned contractors to inspect the resident property for damp and mould. It has carried out works including installing a damp proof course, improving ventilation through installing a kitchen fan and servicing the bathroom fan, and clearing the guttering. However, it did not follow all the recommendations of the damp contractor. Notably, it failed to take prompt and effective action to remedy a fault in the guttering joints, despite another contractor confirming this may cause water ingress. It also failed to monitor the damp patches on the front bedroom wall. Moreover, after the mould contractor recommended another contractor investigate the cause of high moisture readings, the landlord delayed in completing investigations. For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration by the landlord.
  21. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation, £100 of which was for the failings in its handling of repairs. Its Compensation Policy allows it to offer compensation where its service has fallen below the expected level. However, in this case, over 2 years elapsed between the damp contractor identifying the fault in the gutter joint and this issue being resolved. Moreover, the resident informed the landlord of the elevated impact on that both her and her daughter from damp and mould. In particular, she referred to respiratory problems and said at one point she did not want to sleep in her bedroom. As such, the landlord’s compensation offer was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. We award the resident £700 compensation. In making this award, we have considered our Remedies Guidance. In particular, we have considered the range of compensation suggested for cases of maladministration where there is a significant impact, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.
  22. It is also not evident that the landlord considered historic surveys of the property, or provided them to new contractors for their consideration. Had the landlord been more mindful of previous surveys, especially those carried out by expert contractors, it may have taken all possible causes of damp and mould into account and effected an earlier remedy. In this case, there was a merger, which may have been a possible cause. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) recommends that landlords “proactively investigate incoming datasets during mergers as part of due diligence”. This is to “identify gaps in the knowledge of incoming stock and residents, and work to fill those gaps”. We have therefore recommended the landlord carry out due diligence of its information systems taking into account the recommendations of the Spotlight Report, if it not already completed this exercise.

Complaint Handling

  1. The resident submitted her formal complaint on 14 May 2024. The landlord’s Customer Feedback Policy follows the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and states it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord provided this time scale when it acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 14 May 2024. The stage 1 response of 5 June 2024 was 5 working days outside the timescale. The landlord recognised and apologised for the delay in the stage 1 response. This provided reasonable redress for the length of the delay.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 May 2024. The landlord in the stage 2 response of 30 September 2023 offered £50 for the late response. The landlord’s Customer Feedback Policy in accordance with the Complaint Handling Code states it should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord provided this time scale when it acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 12 July 2024. In its holding response of 9 August 2024, the landlord stated it would update the resident after 10 working days. It did not do this and ultimately it did not send the stage 2 response until a further 7 weeks. Its offer of £50 was for the late response was appropriate and proportionate to the length of the delay. It is consistent with awards the Ombudsman may make where there is a service failure that did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.
  3. In summary, while the landlord delayed in sending its complaint responses, it provided reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolved these failings. As this finding is contingent of the compensation award of £50, we recommend the landlord pay this to the resident, if it has not already done so.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, including repairs to the gutters.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which satisfactorily resolved the failings in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to:
    1. send an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident £700 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her reports of damp and mould. The landlord may deduct any payment already made within the complaint process regarding repairs.
    3. confirm to the resident and the Ombudsman whether it has monitored the front wall following the inspection of 20 September 2024. If so, it should advise of the outcome. If not, it should arrange an appointment to inspect the wall.
    4. confirm to the resident if it intends to complete any other works at the property. It should confirm if it will be installing a drip groove to the underside of front bedroom, carrying out pointing works, and carrying out any works to the roof/loft/chimney. It should also satisfy itself that the damp and mould issues reported is effectively tackled by any works completed or planned.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 6 weeks, to undertake a review of this case. At a minimum, it should consider:
    1. the delays in completing works and inspections, and how it could have avoided or mitigated them.
    2. whether it could have improved its record-keeping.
    3. whether it could have better updated and communicated with the resident.
    4. why it was not more proactive in contacting the neighbour and how it could have avoided and mitigated this.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends:
    1. the landlord pays the resident the £50 offered in the stage 2 letter for the delay in responding if it has not already done so.
    2. the landlord considers developing a procedure for cases where works may be needed to a property it does not own or manage.
    3. the landlord carries out due diligence of its information systems taking into account the recommendations of the Spotlight Report, if it has not already completed this exercise.