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

Birmingham City Council (202306428)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306428

Birmingham City Council

30 April 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. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in October 2012. The landlord said that the tenancy ended in November 2023. The property was a 2–bedroom, semi-detached bungalow. The landlord has advised it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The evidence shows that the resident had a need for a visiting carer based on medical grounds.
  2. Prior to the events of this investigation, the resident reported damp and mould in the property in September 2014 and works were completed in October 2014.
  3. On 18 November 2022, a local councillor contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident. They said that the landlord’s contractors had visited the resident in 2015 to remedy the damp in the bedroom by “boarding it over”. They went on to note that the property was single brick and could not be insulated. They requested that “this be looked into”.
  4. In December 2022, the councillor chased the landlord for a response and requested the enquiry be escalated as a “matter of urgency”. The landlord responded saying it had arranged for an inspection of the damp and mould in the bedroom to be carried out on 13 January 2024. The resident contacted the landlord saying that the mould was spreading to other areas of the property.
  5. In January 2023, a visit was carried out to the resident’s property. The resident reported to the councillor that the mould was going to be treated on the walls and ceiling. However, he said he was advised that it was his responsibility to clean the mould around the windows. The councillor contacted the landlord chasing a response. They said that they had escalated the enquiry previously but received no further response from the landlord.
  6. In February 2023, the case notes show that the damp treatment work was completed. The landlord responded to the councillor apologising for the delay in providing a “full response”. It said that on 7 February 2023 all areas were treated with barrier paint. It explained further that this formed a waterproof seal on the treated areas, keeping moisture out and allowing for evaporation to prevent the damp and mould re-occurring.
  7. In May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord asking if it was planning to investigate what was causing the damp and mould and what was going to be done about it. We also contacted the landlord enquiring as to whether it had issued a stage 1 or stage 2 response.
  8. In June 2023, the landlord contacted the resident advising it was going to escalate his enquiry to a complaint at stage 1. It also advised this Service that it had been corresponding with the resident’s councillor, but there were no formal complaints raised in respect of the matter. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 26 June 2023, saying that the bathroom, bedroom, and hallway had been treated for mould and a works order had been raised for a further inspection. It said that prior to the work carried out in February 2023, the resident had not raised any issues with damp and mould since 2014. It offered the resident a total of £125 for delays in carrying out the works regarding the damp and mould and for the late handling of his complaint.
  9. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 30 June 2023. We contacted the landlord on 17 August 2023 outlining details of the resident’s complaint. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 23 August 2023. It said that it was sorry for the late response and outlined its understanding of the complaint. It went on to say that it had carried out a guttering repair on 21 July 2023, and on 30 June 2023 its contractor had applied damp treatment around the bedroom windows.
  10. This Service contacted the landlord again in September 2023. We explained that the resident had said the property had required redecoration on several occasions due to the damp and mould problems, and personal possessions had had to be replaced due to damage caused by mould. This information was provided to the landlord in correspondence from this Service dated 17 August 2023. We requested that the landlord respond to all the points raised and revise its response.
  11. The landlord sent its final response on 20 September 2023. It said that:
    1. Following the resident’s report of damp and mould in December 2022, an inspection was carried out in January 2023 and the affected areas were treated on 7 February 2023.
    2. As part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, a request was made to inspect the guttering. The resident had not raised a report in relation to the damp and mould. Works were carried out on 21 July 2023 and there had been no further issues reported.
    3. The resident had requested a further inspection be made of the property in relation to damp and mould. It visited on 30 June 2023 and carried out remedial works. There was no evidence of extensive damp and mould growth raised by the contractor at that time, and no follow-up appointment was required. In addition, it had not received any further contact from the resident following the works.
    4. In response to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, a 12-month capital works programme had commenced to carry out inspections of all property standards where damp and mould may be an issue.
    5. During contact with this Service, we indicated that issues with damp and mould had returned since the treatment on 30 June 2023. The landlord therefore requested a further visit take place to inspect the issue and take appropriate remedial action.
    6. It considered the compensation of £125 offered at stage 1 was reasonable and was not increasing its offer.
  12. The resident was rehoused in November 2023. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint and advised this Service that he was seeking £5,000 compensation for the impact on his health and personal belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said that he had been reporting issues with damp and mould since 2014. While we do not dispute this, the Ombudsman encourages residents to refer unresolved complaints to this Service in a timely manner so that any service failure by the landlord can be addressed promptly. As issues become historical, evidence become difficult to obtain and authenticate. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the events surrounding the resident’s formal complaint regarding damp and mould.
  2. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to concerns about the impact his living conditions may have had on his health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns regarding the potential impact the damp and mould has had on him. Unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused or worsened a health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with through the courts or as a personal injury insurance claim.
  3. Where a resident holds a landlord responsible for health impacts or damage to their personal belongings, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost them to its insurance team or process. It is noted that insurers specialise in resolving liability matters. Alternatively, landlords can address some issues through their own internal complaints procedure. This approach could be applied to a small number of damaged items. A recommendation has been made in relation to this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repair policy outlines the following categories of repairs:
    1. Emergency repairs will be responded to with 24 hours. This type of repair applies where there is a danger of injury or damage to the property.
    2. Urgent repairs will be completed within 1, 3 or 7 working days based on the requirements of the Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994. Urgent repairs are those that are concerned with protecting the health and safety of the tenant and their family, or the security of the property.
    3. Routine repairs are targeted to be completed within 30 days.
  2. On 18 November 2022, a local councillor contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident reporting damp and mould in the bedroom. They chased the landlord on 10 December 2022, and on 12 December 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that the damp and mould had returned. The landlord responded to the councillor on 13 December 2022 explaining that it had spoken with the resident and arranged an inspection for 13 January 2023.
  3. It was not appropriate that it took the landlord 37 days to visit the resident following the report of 18 November 2022. This is of particular concern as the landlord was aware of the historical mould issue reported within the property, even though this was in 2014. The resident had also reported that the mould was spreading to other areas of the property. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould outlines that landlords should take a proactive, zero tolerance approach to damp and mould, ensuring that their responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord failed to adhere to its repair policy timescale of 7 days for urgent repairs, or even its 30-day timescale for routine repairs.
  4. On 18 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord saying that he was advised the ceiling and walls would be treated, but he would be required to “wipe down” windows and doors. He said that he could not do this as he had back problems. Internal correspondence of 26 January 2023 said that it was “part of the tenancy agreement that tenants wipe down walls, windows etc”. This approach was not appropriate. Our spotlight report says that landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident. In addition, it recommends that they provide customised advice to residents at tenancy sign–up about how to best manage the environment within their home, as this can help to prevent damp and mould occurring. The importance of a tailored approach, that takes account of a resident’s personal circumstances and any vulnerabilities, is highlighted.
  5. On 7 February 2023, the repair log shows that “all damp treatment” had been applied. The landlord advised the councillor that it had treated the areas with barrier paint. This was 54 working days after the initial report of damp and mould on 18 November 2022. This was not appropriate and significantly outside of its repair policy timescale. The spotlight report says that landlord should be proactive in their approach to tackling damp and mould, which is essential to improving the experience of residents.
  6. On 30 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord asking if it was going to investigate the underlying cause of the damp and mould. He also contacted this Service on 31 May 2023 expressing he was unhappy that the landlord had “painted over the mould” and had not found the cause. A stage 1 complaint was raised on 7 June 2023. The landlord responded on 26 June 2023. It said that prior to completing the works on 7 February 2023, the resident had not reported any issues regarding damp and mould since 2014. It went on to say that this indicated the property had no underlying issues causing recurring damp and mould and therefore did not require a further survey.
  7. This was not appropriate, given the resident had reported his concerns, one way or another, regarding the damp and mould 8 times between November 2022 and June 2023. At the least, the landlord should have carried out a survey to satisfy itself that it was meeting its obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Under the HHSRS, landlords have a duty to ensure their properties are free from hazards such as damp and mould. Although it is not possible for a local authority to enforce the provisions of Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 against itself, it should nevertheless have regard for it.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 response also said that had considered a delay in carrying out the works from the initial report of 13 December 2022 to the works being carried out on 7 February 2023. It offered £75 for the distress and inconvenience. The was incorrect information as the initial report regarding damp and mould was raised on 18 November 2022. Furthermore, we consider this amount did not reflect the impact of the distress caused to the resident over the 3–month period.
  9. In June 2023, the landlord carried out repairs to the guttering and further damp treatment around the bedroom window. These were completed within 19 working days and 4 working days respectively, following a works order being raised on 26 June 2023. While this was in line with its repair policy, it delayed in raising the works order to treat the windows. The landlord was aware of the need to treat the mould around the windows on 18 January 2023, when the resident was advised to wipe it down himself. This delay was unreasonable, especially as the resident had said he was unable to do this due to his back problems.
  10. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 30 June 2023. This Service has not had sight of the escalation request, which indicates a record keeping failure. We contacted the landlord on 17 August 2023 clarifying concerns raised by the resident in relation to the complaint.
  11. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 23 August 2023, saying that the resident had raised issues relating to the guttering and a repair had taken place. It also said that it had completed the damp and mould treatment. This response failed to address the additional point raised by this Service on behalf of the resident. On 12 September 2023, we contacted the landlord requesting it address the point raised on 17 August 2023. The landlord issued an addendum stage 2 response on 20 September 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing the response and outlined the action that it had taken.
  12. The landlord went on to say that it had carried out a survey of the property following the resident’s request and that its contractor did not identify any extensive damp and mould growth. It made reference to our spotlight report, saying a 12-month capital works programme had commenced to carry out inspections of all properties where damp and mould may be an issue. This was a positive step by the landlord and demonstrated that it was giving consideration to the recommendations outlined in the report. Nevertheless, it said that it would not be increasing the offer of compensation and reiterated its offer of £75.
  13. While the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, it is our opinion that its offer of £75 was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Therefore, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  14. This is because it did not promptly attend to the resident’s report. It took 37 days to carry out a visit from being notified the damp and mould, which was contrary to its repair policy. It also inappropriately put the onus on the resident to clean the mould from around the windows. Furthermore, it took 54 working days to carrying out any treatment of the mould, which again was outside of its policy timescale.
  15. The resident had requested an inspection be carried out to identify any underlying causes, which the landlord initially refused. This was a missed opportunity to satisfy itself that the property was free from a hazard associated with damp and mould, and also a failure to demonstrate that it was taking the resident’s complaint seriously.
  16. Furthermore, it is evident the landlord’s lack of communication to the resident was frustrating and caused him distress and inconvenience as well as time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
  17. As a result, £350 compensation has been awarded to the resident. This is made up of £50 per month for its delay in fully treating the mould to the walls, ceiling, and windows between 18 November 2022 and 30 June 2023. The landlord provided us with a copy of its “general policy [for] compensation claims”, which we have referred to in this case. We acknowledge that this policy says it does not pay for “inconvenience/distress etc”. We have therefore applied our remedies guidance. Compensation should be routinely considered by the landlord where there has been a service failure.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that if the landlord can resolve an issue as soon as it is brought to its attention, it will do so. In cases where this is not possible, a 2–stage complaint process applies. The policy outlines the following:
    1. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 48 hours and an attempt made to resolve the issue. Failing this, a response will be sent within 15 working days.
    2. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s “customer guide” procedure also relates to dealing with complaints. It outlines a 3–stage process:
    1. Stage 1 – settle the complaint immediately.
    2. Stage 2 – investigate the complaint, and a response will be provided within 15 working days.
    3. Stage 3 – review the complaint, and a response will be provided within 20 working days.
  3. On 18 November 2022, the resident’s councillor contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident outlining his concerns in relation to damp and mould. The councillor chased the landlord for a response on 10 December 2022. The landlord responded on 13 December 20253 saying that it had arranged for an inspection of the mould growth to be carried out. It was not appropriate that the landlord took 17 working days to respond to the councillor. Its policy says that it will try to resolve issues as soon as they are brought to its attention and/or immediately. The landlord failed to adhere to its policy and only responded after being chased by the councillor.
  4. The resident contacted the councillor on 18 January 2023. He was unhappy that he had been advised he would have to clean the mould around the windows himself. The councillor contacted the landlord on 27 January 2023, saying that they had escalated the enquiry previously but received no further response. The landlord contacted the councillor on 9 February 2023, apologising for the delay and outlining the action it had taken. It was at this point that the landlord should have recognised the need to raise a stage 1 complaint and provide a formal response. Its policy says that it in cases where it has been unable to resolve issues, the 2–stage complaints process will be applied. Given that the councillor had contacted it 3 times in relation to the same matter, a formal complaint should have been raised. It was not appropriate that this was not done, as it delayed a resolution for the resident.
  5. The resident contacted this Service on 31 May 2023 saying he was unhappy that the landlord had painted over the mould and not found the underlying cause. We contacted the landlord asking it to provide its formal responses. On 7 June 2023, the landlord contacted the resident advising that it would progress his complaint to stage 1 and provide a response by 14 June 2023.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 26 June 2023, which was 13 working days later. While the response was provided within its policy timescale of 15 working days, it failed to adhere to the deadline of 14 June 2023 it had previously provided to the resident. This likely caused him some distress and inconvenience as well as undermining his confidence in the landlord. It is good practice for landlords to contact residents prior to a response being due should the need arise to amend a timescale.
  7. The landlord went on to offer the resident £50 compensation for its delay in handling his complaint. It was a positive step for it to award compensation in an attempt to put things right. Nevertheless, we find this was not proportionate to reflect the impact of the significant delay. It took the landlord 102 working days to provide a response following the notification from the local councillor on 27 January 2023.
  8. The landlord said that the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 30 June 2023. We have not had sight of the escalation request, which indicates a record keeping failure. We contacted the landlord on 17 August 2023 clarifying concerns raised by the resident in relation to the complaint.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 August 2023. This was 38 working days later and not appropriate as it was significantly outside of its policy timescale of 20 working days. We contacted the landlord on 12 September 2023, explaining that we could not see that it had responded to the points or referenced any further actions as a result of our contact on 17 August 2023. As a result the landlord issued an addendum stage 2 response on 20 September 2023, which was detailed and covered the point raised by the resident. However, the landlord failed to increase its offer of compensation and explained that it thought the amount was “reasonable”. This was a further missed opportunity to recognise the impact of the situation on the resident and put things right.
  10. In summary, the landlord did not adequately follow its complaints policy in the resident’s case. It initially failed to recognise the need to raise a formal complaint on 27 January 2023. It then did not provide its stage 1 response within the timescale it provided to the resident. The stage 1 response was provided after 102 working days. This was evidently frustrating for the resident, who chased matters via the local councillor. The stage 2 complaint response was sent 18 working days outside of the landlord’s policy timescale, and did not address all the points of the complaint. The addendum response was provided following intervention from this Service. It is clear that the delays in handling the complaint were frustrating for the resident and he expended time and trouble in pursing the complaint.
  11. Due to the above, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord provided us with a copy of its “general policy [for] compensation claims”, which we have referred to in this case. We acknowledge that this policy says it does not pay for “inconvenience/distress etc” (the wording of the policy has previously been highlighted to the landlord as a source of concern). Nevertheless, the resident expended time and trouble in pursuing the complaint, having chased the matter, and was delayed in bringing his complaint to this Service. Therefore, we consider financial redress is due and £250 compensation has been awarded to him. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £600, made up of:
      1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him and loss of enjoyment of the property as a result of damp and mould.
      2. £250 for the time and trouble he spent pursuing the complaint.
      3. This should be reduced by any amount already paid.
    3. Arrange for relevant staff involved in complaint handing to complete this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/ if this has not been done recently.
    4. If appropriate, contact the resident in order to confirm the nature of his vulnerabilities. It should then update its records to reflect these, and any reasonable adjustments required.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord considers assessing its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This could include the completion of this Service’s free online training in relation to KIM for landlords and relevant staff if this has not been done recently.
  2. If appropriate, it is recommended that the landlord makes contact with the resident to assist him with making a claim on its own insurance policy should he so wish.