Birmingham City Council (202313362)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313362

Birmingham City Council

5 December 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of a leak from the property above
2. reports of damp and mould in his property
3. associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, and lives with his wife and 4 children. The property is a 3-bedroom flat, located on the ground floor of a 3-storey building.
The resident has experienced a persistent leak in his flat originating from 2 properties above him in the building. A leaseholder owns one of these properties, which this investigation report refers to as Flat A. The landlord owns the other property, referred to as Flat B.
Additionally, the resident has been represented by a Member of Parliament, who has raised several concerns and formal complaints on his behalf. For ease of reference, this report will use “the resident” to refer to both the resident and the Member of Parliament.
On 6 March 2023, the resident emailed his local councillor to report severe damp and mould in his property. He also stated that the poor conditions in his property were exacerbating his son’s eczema. The councillor subsequently informed the landlord of these concerns.
On 21 April 2023, the landlord instructed an operative to inspect the resident’s property, and a leak was identified originating from Flat A, causing significant water to gather on the resident’s bathroom floor. The operative attempted to access Flat A to assess the leak further, but the tenant was not home. The operative also noted damp and mould in the resident’s living room, attributing it to the resident’s lifestyle. The operative raised a job to clean the living room walls and all bedrooms, followed by a mould treatment.
On 12 May 2023, the resident informed the landlord that water from the leak had caused the lights in his bathroom, hallway and toilet to stop working. On the same day, an electrician attended the resident’s flat and disconnected the power supply to those rooms.
On 15 May 2023, the landlord’s homeownership team contacted the leaseholder of Flat A, requesting that they resolve the leak in their property within 5 working days. In response, the leaseholder of Flat A, informed the landlord that their property was also experiencing a leak, which they believed originated from Flat B.
On 26 May 2023, the landlord emailed the resident’s local councillor to apologise for the delayed response to earlier correspondence. The landlord clarified that it had not received reports of damp and mould from the resident since 2021, and outlined the steps it had taken to address the reported issues in his property. The councillor did not relay this response to the resident.
On the same day, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord, stating that it had not addressed his earlier correspondence. The resident complained that his son had become unwell due to the damp and mould in the property. He also requested that the landlord relocate him and his family to temporary accommodation until the issues with the leak, damp and mould in his property were resolved.
Between 5 June 2023 and 16 June 2023, the landlord instructed an electrician to reinstate the lighting in the affected rooms of the resident’s property. The electrician could not complete the work due to the ongoing leak, and instead, provided the resident with temporary lighting. During this period, an operative also cleaned the walls in the resident’s property, performed a mould wash, and noted that the ceilings in the bathroom, hallway and toilet needed replastering. The landlord also completed repairs in Flat B, to address the leak reported by Flat A.
On 19 June 2023, the landlord emailed the resident’s local councillor to provide a further update. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s bathroom, hallway and toilet still had no working lights and confirmed that it had raised a job for the lighting to be reinstated. Additionally, it advised that it had arranged a further inspection of the damp and mould in the resident’s property and had raised a job to replaster the affected ceilings. However, the councillor did not send the landlord’s update to the resident.
On 22 June 2023, an electrician reinstated the lighting in the resident’s property. On 4 July 2023, an operative conducted a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property. On 12 July 2023, another operative replastered the hallway ceiling but was unable to complete work in the bathroom and toilet due to signs of an active leak.
On 19 July 2023, following intervention from this service, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It highlighted that it had already responded to his concerns relating to the leak, damp and mould in his property, and included copies of the updates previously sent to the local councillor. The landlord apologised that these responses were not shared with the resident at the time.
On 16 August 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. The resident stated that the leak in his property remained active, with water coming through his bathroom light, and that the landlord had not informed him of the next steps it planned to take, to resolve the reported issues.
On 22 August 2023, the landlord carried out additional repairs in Flat B, however, up until 28 September 2023, the resident continued to report a leak from Flat A affecting the lighting in his property.
On 10 October 2023, following intervention from this service, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. In the response, the landlord apologised for the delay in addressing the complaint, and assured the resident that the leak in his property had been resolved through completed repairs in both Flat A and Flat B. It confirmed that an operative would inspect the resident’s property by the end of the week to determine if any urgent repairs were needed, including addressing any unresolved issues with damp and mould. The landlord also offered the resident £200 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in resolving the leak.

Events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process

The day after the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the resident reported to the landlord that his bathroom had no lighting because the leak from Flat A remained unresolved. Subsequently, on 23 October 2023, the landlord instructed an operative to investigate the leak in the resident’s property. During the inspection, the operative observed water dripping into the boiler unit and main fuse box. For safety reasons the operative capped the gas supply to the property and marked the boiler as out of service.
The resident escalated his complaint to this service on 24 October 2023, stating that the landlord had failed to resolve the leak in his property. As a result, he was without heating, hot water, and full lighting. He also reported that damp and mould remained present in his property.
On 8 December 2023, the resident informed the landlord that his wife had been hospitalised due to the poor conditions in his property. He accused the landlord of neglecting his living conditions because of his race and stated that he would withhold his rent to cover hotel costs for his family while his property lacked heating and hot water.
On 3 January 2024, the landlord replaced the resident’s boiler, restoring his heating and hot water services. However, the resident continued to experience a leak in his property until June 2024.

Scope of investigation

During its handling of the substantive issues in this case, the resident claimed that the landlord’s actions, including leaving him without heating, hot water, and full lighting, amounted to racial discrimination.
While the serious nature of this allegation is acknowledged, determining whether the landlord’s actions or inaction constituted racial discrimination, is a legal matter which must ultimately be decided by a court of law. Therefore, this investigation has not considered this aspect of the resident’s case. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he intends to pursue this matter further. It is important to highlight that we have reviewed the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about alleged racial discrimination and assessed whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances. What we have not done is make a determination on whether the landlord’s actions amounted to discrimination in a legal sense as defined by the Equality Act 2010.
The resident told this service that the landlord’s prolonged delay in addressing the leak, damp, and mould in his property negatively impacted his son’s eczema and his wife’s physical health. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can adversely affect health, therefore we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint requires a determination of liability for personal injury, which is a matter that falls outside the Ombudsman’s remit. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered through a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law, which will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that members of his household have been affected by an action or lack thereof by the landlord. We have, however, considered any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to any errors by the landlord, as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding his son and wife’s health.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, addresses concerns raised by the resident on 6 March 2023. However, the landlord’s records indicate that the resident first reported a leak from Flat A in October 2022. Since the substantive issue continued and the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord within 12 months of the matter arising, we have determined it is reasonable to expand the scope of this investigation to include the resident’s reports from October 2022. Furthermore, at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the substantive issues remained unresolved. To ensure a fair and thorough assessment of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns, we have also extended the scope of this investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Legal obligations and policy framework

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, requires the landlord to maintain and repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as the installations for water supply and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy conditions state that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and ensuring the proper functioning of installations for gas, electricity, heating and hot water.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (The Homes Act 2018) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, drainage and sanitary conveniences, facilities for preparation and cooking of food, and disposal of wastewater, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord has not provided a copy of its repairs policy which would usually include target timeframes for responding to different repairs. However, industry best practice recommends timescales of:
1. 24 hours to respond to emergency repairs
2. 3 to 7 days to respond to urgent repairs
3. up to 28 days to respond to routine or non-urgent repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.

The evidence shows that between 4 October 2022 and 7 December 2022, the resident repeatedly reported to the landlord that a leak from Flat A was causing the lighting in his property to fail. The landlord should have arranged an inspection of the resident’s property to investigate and address the underlying issue. Instead, after each report, it instructed an electrician to disconnect and restore the power to the affected rooms, focusing only on the electrical issues without resolving the source of the leak. This response breached the landlord’s legal obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. By failing to address the root cause of the problem, the landlord neglected its duty to maintain the resident’s property in a safe and functional condition. This failure likely caused inconvenience to the resident, leaving him without reliable lighting in his property for an extended period. Additionally, the landlord’s approach not only prolonged the issue of an unresolved leak, but also increased the risk of further damage to the property and potential safety hazards for the resident.
There are no further records of the resident reporting a leak in his property until 1 March 2023. On the same day, the landlord’s records show that an electrician attended the resident’s property and found water running into the lights and sockets, indicating a serious safety hazard. The electrician appropriately made the electrics safe and provided temporary lighting, to address the immediate electrical issues. However, the landlord failed to arrange an inspection of the leak until 21 April 2023, which was 52 days later. This delay was unacceptable given the severity of the situation and far exceeded all industry best practice timescales for repairs. Consequently, the resident was left to rely on temporary lighting solutions, and lived with an ongoing leak, understandably causing considerable distress, inconvenience, and disruption to his daily life.
During the inspection of the resident’s property, the operative appropriately attempted to access Flat A to investigate the leak further, but the tenant was not home. The landlord should have promptly arranged a follow-up visit or contacted the leaseholder of Flat A immediately, to complete its investigation. Instead, it took 25 days for the landlord to contact the leaseholder and request they address the leak in their property. This delay was inappropriate. While the leaseholder was responsible for plumbing repairs within their property, the landlord had a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the leaseholder carried out appropriate repairs to mitigate damage to the resident’s home. The 25-day delay by the landlord demonstrated a failure to fulfil this obligation and handle the situation with the urgency it required.
The leaseholder of Flat A, informed the landlord that the source of the leak was coming from Flat B. The landlord, as the freeholder, should have conducted its own assessments of Flat A, or obtained copies of any relevant inspection reports, to ensure it had accurate information regarding the source of the leak. There is no evidence that the landlord took these steps, leading the Ombudsman to question the validity of its subsequent decisions. Carrying out a thorough investigation avoids assumptions, reduces the risk of misdiagnosis, and prevents unnecessary delays in resolving issues. By relying solely on the leaseholder’s account, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord went far enough to fully investigate and address the root cause of the leak, thereby failing to uphold its responsibilities to maintain the resident’s property and protect the resident’s living conditions.
The evidence shows that the landlord completed repairs in Flat B, on 14 June 2023, which was a reasonable attempt to address the root cause of the leak in the resident’s property. However, there is no evidence of the landlord conducting post-inspections of Flat A or the resident’s property, to confirm that the repairs successfully resolved the leaks within their properties. Post-inspections play a vital role in effective property management and maintenance. They verify that repairs have addressed the problem, ensure properties remain safe and habitable, and help to identify and resolve any potential related or secondary problems before they escalate. By failing to monitor the effectiveness of the repairs, the landlord missed an opportunity to confirm that the issue had been fully resolved. This oversight shifted the responsibility onto the resident to report further issues, likely causing additional inconvenience, and undermined the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the resident’s property was safe, functional, and free from further damage.
Between 15 June 2023 and 11 July 2023, the resident did not report any further leaks, and the evidence shows that the landlord appropriately arranged for full lighting to be restored during this time. However, by 12 July 2023, during an appointment to replaster the resident’s hallway and bathroom ceilings, the operative discovered an active leak. This suggested that the landlord had either failed to identify the root cause and needed to conduct further investigations, or that a new leak had developed, requiring immediate attention. Despite this, the evidence shows that the landlord delayed taking further action for 42 days, eventually completing additional repairs in Flat B. This response fell significantly outside industry best practice expectations for all repair categories. Without evidence of any mitigating factors to justify this delay, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord acted unreasonably in addressing the ongoing leak in the resident’s property.
Following the landlord’s additional repairs in Flat B on 22 August 2023, the resident reported 9 days later that the leak from Flat A continued. At this stage, the evidence shows that the landlord’s response was limited to emailing the leaseholder of Flat A, to request an update on whether the leak remained active in their property. While the Ombudsman recognises that locating and resolving a leak can be complex and time-consuming, landlords are expected to maintain open and transparent communication with residents throughout the process. This includes providing clear, unprompted updates on actions being taken to address the issue. The evidence does not show that the landlord fulfilled this responsibility, leaving the resident uncertain about when the leak in his property would be resolved and whether the landlord was treating the matter as a priority. This uncertainty persisted for 42 days, until intervention from this service on 4 October 2023, prompted the landlord to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This lack of communication from the landlord was wholly inappropriate and demonstrated a failure to provide the resident with the assurance and clarity expected during a prolonged and distressing situation.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response issued on 10 October 2023, committed to inspecting the leak in the resident’s property within the following days. However, the landlord delayed the inspection by 2 weeks, during which time the leak spread to the resident’s boiler, leaving him without heating and hot water. Notably, prior to this inspection, 50 days had passed without the landlord conducting any further investigations. Although the leaseholder of Flat A informed the landlord that their property showed no signs of a leak, the landlord did not take steps to independently verify this information. While the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that an earlier inspection of the resident’s property would have entirely prevented the leak from affecting his boiler, the evidence strongly indicates that a more proactive and timely investigation was necessary, to address the ongoing issues and mitigate their impact on the resident.
Under the resident’s tenancy conditions, the landlord was responsible for maintaining the installations for heating, hot water, and sanitation in his property. Upon being informed that the resident was without these facilities, it should have provided the resident with alternative provisions, such as temporary heating and access to hot water, to mitigate the impact on the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord provided temporary heating to the resident, on 22 November 2023, 31 days after being put on notice, and there is no evidence to suggest that it provided access to hot water at any point. This was unacceptable, as the delay in providing temporary heating and the complete lack of hot water provisions, failed to address the resident’s immediate needs, likely causing unnecessary hardship and discomfort to the entire household.
Additionally, the landlord should have evaluated whether it had a responsibility to provide the resident with temporary accommodation. This consideration was especially important given the winter period, the unresolved identification of the leak’s source, and a child living in the property with eczema, which may have been aggravated by the living conditions. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered these factors or acknowledged the resident’s repeated requests for assistance, demonstrating a failure by the landlord to show due regard to the health and well-being of the resident and the vulnerabilities in his household.
The resident informed the landlord that his wife had been hospitalised due to their living conditions. He also expressed his belief that the landlord’s poor treatment toward him was due to his race. The evidence shows that the landlord did not address the resident’s claims or acknowledge his wife’s health, which was both inappropriate and lacking in empathy. The landlord should have provided a clear and empathetic response to the resident’s concerns. By failing to do so, the landlord likely exacerbated the resident’s distress, and further eroded the resident’s trust in the landlord’s ability to handle his situation fairly and provide adequate support during a challenging and sensitive time.
The evidence shows that while the resident was without heating and hot water, the landlord directed the leaseholder of Flat A to inspect their property again for any leaks and complete any necessary repairs. The landlord provided a deadline of 5 working days for a response, but the leaseholder failed to comply. Despite this, the landlord did not follow up with the leaseholder until 24 days later, contributing to further unreasonable delays and additional inconvenience to the resident. As the freeholder, the landlord was responsible for ensuring the leaseholder fulfilled their repair obligations, particularly when not doing so may have been causing damage to the resident’s property and impacting the resident. Given the seriousness of circumstances, the landlord should have considered taking direct action by carrying out any necessary repairs in Flat A and recharging the costs to the leaseholder. The landlord threatened legal action against the leaseholder on 5 December 2023, if they failed to respond to its enquiries. However, there is no evidence indicating whether the leaseholder responded, whether the landlord escalated its actions, or why it took an additional 26 days to reinstate the resident’s boiler. By failing to demonstrate that it reasonably explored all available options, the Ombudsman concludes that the landlord did not take sufficient action to restore the resident’s property to a habitable condition within a reasonable timeframe.
Overall, the evidence shows that the resident endured an unresolved leak for over 18 months, and the landlord failed to act fairly, reasonably, or in a timely manner to address the issue and mitigate its impact. The landlord’s actions during the 10-week period the resident was without heating, hot water and full lighting are particularly concerning. Although the leaseholder of Flat A contributed to some of the delays during this time, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to fulfil its obligations under The Homes Act 2018. This failure significantly increased the resident’s distress and hardship.
While the landlord offered £200 in compensation during its complaints process, reflecting an attempt to put things right for the resident, this amount does not adequately reflect the prolonged suffering, inconvenience, and additional costs the resident incurred due to the landlord’s delays and poor handling of repairs.
Furthermore, on conclusion of its complaints process, the leak in the resident’s property remained unresolved. The landlord’s communication with the resident was infrequent, and it failed to demonstrate effective management of the situation or a focused effort to identify and resolve the root cause of the problem. This lack of communication and accountability left the resident in a state of ongoing uncertainty and without adequate support. This suggested the landlord had not fully learned from the outcomes of the resident’s complaint or taken steps to prevent any further service failures.
Considering these factors, the Ombudsman has determined severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. Where there has been a determination of severe maladministration which has had a significant long-term impact on the resident, the guidance states that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £1000 or over, in order to put things right. In view of this, the landlord must pay the resident £800 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures in the handling of this case. This amount is inclusive of the landlord’s earlier offer of £200, which can be deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.
Additionally, the Ombudsman has carefully considered the resident’s loss of amenity and the level of rent charged during the 10-week period he was without heating, hot water, and full lighting. At the time, the resident was charged £126.01 in rent, per week. The landlord failed to offer the resident temporary accommodation or provide adequate provisions to mitigate the impact of the lost amenities, rendering all rooms in the property likely uninhabitable. Given these circumstances, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation equivalent to 100% of the rent for the period from 23 October 2023 to 3 January 2024, amounting to £1260.20. This compensation reflects the total rent charged during this time and acknowledges the resident’s loss of amenity. While this amount does not represent a precise calculation of all the losses the resident experienced, this is considered to be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was without lighting for a much longer period than 10 weeks. This has been considered when assessing compensation for distress and inconvenience. However, the lack of lighting by itself would not usually mean the property was uninhabitable because the impact of this can be reduced through the use of temporary lighting. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not order a refund of the rent charged for the period when the lighting was not working but the heating and hot water was still in place.
The landlord must ensure that all compensation payments are made directly to the resident and not offset against any outstanding debt that may be owed to the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.

This service’s Spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, confirms that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. The report states that landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about the actions it is planning to take. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident. Additionally, the report advocates for a cultural shift in addressing damp and mould issues. The report emphasises that landlords must take responsibility rather than assigning blame and calls for the elimination of phrases like “lifestyle choice” from their vocabulary.
The landlord’s records from the inspection of the resident’s property on 21 April 2023, confirm the presence of damp and mould, and the landlord appropriately raised the necessary works to temporarily address the issue 4 days later. This demonstrated a reasonable effort by the landlord to tackle the damp and mould in the resident’s property promptly. However, the Ombudsman notes that during the inspection, the operative attributed the damp and mould to the resident’s “lifestyle”, specifically citing the use of heating and the closure of windows and curtains during the day. This evaluation is particularly troubling, as the same inspection identified a significant leak. Placing sole blame for the damp and mould on the resident’s living conditions, based on a brief observation, contradicted the recommendations outlined above in the Spotlight report, and demonstrated a failure by the landlord to fully consider the structural issues contributing to the problem, undermining a balanced and thorough assessment of the situation.
The landlord could not complete damp and mould works in the resident’s property on 25 April 2023, due to the resident’s furniture obstructing the affected areas. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to reschedule the appointment to ensure that the works could be carried out effectively once the areas were accessible. On 13 June 2023, the landlord appropriately removed the mould from the resident’s walls and carried out a mould wash but acknowledged that an active leak was still contributing to the damp conditions. Following repairs to address the leak in Flat B, on 14 June 2023, the landlord arranged another inspection of the damp and mould in the resident’s property 21 days later. The landlord’s actions here were reasonable in the circumstances. It prioritised resolving the leak before fully addressing the damp and mould, as eliminating the source of excess moisture was essential to preventing further growth or spread of damp and mould. Additionally, the landlord’s plan to reassess the property after the leak repair, demonstrated a proactive approach to monitoring the issue.
The landlord reassessed the damp and mould in the resident’s property on 4 July 2023. However, it has not provided an inspection report outlining the findings or recommendations for addressing the issues. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it shared the inspection outcome with the resident, which would have ensured he was fully informed about the findings and the planned actions to address the issue. This lack of documentation prevents the Ombudsman from evaluating the landlord’s assessment of the situation or determining the adequacy of its plans to resolve the damp and mould effectively. However, it is clear from the evidence that the landlord still needed to address the excess moisture in the resident’s property, as on 12 July 2023, an operative noted the property remained “very damp”. Despite this, the landlord took no documented steps to eliminate the excess moisture until 6 months later, on 18 January 2024, when it provided the resident with dehumidifiers. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the leak in the resident’s property persisted for a significant length of time, the landlord was still expected to take timely and effective actions to mitigate the impact of the damp and mould on the resident’s living conditions. Not only is this a requirement under HHSRS, but this would have been critical during the time the resident was without heating, as the lack of proper heating would have exacerbated the damp and mould issues. This lack of action highlights significant shortcomings in the landlord’s approach to addressing the damp and mould in the resident’s property.
The landlord’s records indicate that it carried out a damp and mould survey of the resident’s property in September 2023. However, it has not provided a copy of the survey report. While conducting another inspection demonstrates that the landlord was monitoring the damp and mould to some extent, as mentioned above, the lack of documentation prevents the Ombudsman from determining whether the landlord used its findings to take meaningful action or implement effective solutions to resolve the issues in the resident’s property.
Finally, it is concerning that the landlord failed to consider the vulnerabilities within the resident’s household when responding to reports of damp and mould in the property. The evidence shoes that the resident repeatedly informed the landlord of having a child in the home and expressed concerns about the unsuitable living conditions and their potential impact on health. On notice of damp and mould in the property, the landlord should have conducted a health and safety risk assessment to determine whether reasonable adjustments were necessary to address these concerns. The absence of any evidence showing that the landlord considered these factors highlights a significant failure in its duty to respond appropriately to the resident’s circumstances.
Considering the findings set out above, the Ombudsman has determined maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.
As there is evidence of the landlord previously conducting inspections of the damp and mould in the resident’s property, we will order the landlord to share the findings and recommendations of both inspections with the resident. It should discuss with the resident any recommendations made by its surveyors and the works it has already undertaken to complete these. It should clearly set out reasons for any works it will not undertake and follow this discussion up in writing.
The landlord must carry out another inspection of the resident’s property to satisfy itself that the damp and mould has been fully resolved. From this it should create an action plan to resolve the damp and mould in the resident’s property, if this has not been fully addressed.
Based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, where there has been a determination of maladministration, where the landlord’s failings have adversely affected the resident, the guidance states that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right. In this case, the landlord must pay the resident £300 in recognition of the failures highlighted in this report, relating to its handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

At the time of the resident raising his complaint, the landlord operated a 3-stage complaints process. At stage 1, the landlord aimed to resolve complaints immediately. If a resolution was not possible, the complaint would be escalated to stage 2, with a target response time of 15 working days. Complaints escalated to stage 3, required a response within 20 working days.
The evidence shows that the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 26 May 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 66 days later on 19 July 2023. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord initially addressed the resident’s concerns through its MP enquiry process and provided updates to the resident’s local councillor. However, the landlord should have also sent these updates directly to the resident to ensure he was aware that his concerns were being addressed. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for this oversight in its stage 1 complaint response and provide the resident with copies of the previous updates.
The resident stated in his stage 1 complaint that his son had become unwell due to the damp and mould in his property. The landlord did not address the resident’s concern in its complaint response which demonstrated a failure to acknowledge or take seriously the potential health impact of the damp and mould on the resident’s household. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, available on our website, highlights the importance of landlords providing clear, accurate, and complete responses to complaints. This approach ensures that residents feel heard and helps build trust and transparency between landlords and residents. By neglecting to address this element of the resident’s complaint, the landlord may have left the resident feeling ignored and unsupported.
The resident requested an escalation of his complaint on 16 August 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 55 days later, on 10 October 2023. The landlord only provided its response after the Ombudsman intervened, and it offered no explanation for the delay. This delay likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as he was left uncertain about how the landlord intended to resolve the issues in his property. Additionally, the resident had to expend time and effort contacting this service to prompt the landlord for a response. The landlord failed to offer any redress for this delay, which the Ombudsman finds inappropriate, as landlords are expected to take responsibility and provide suitable remedies when failures occur.
Overall, the Ombudsman has determined severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because of the landlord’s failure to fully address the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and significant delays in responding to both the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. The Ombudsman finds that almost all of the responses to the resident’s communication and formal complaints, required third-party intervention. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that, without the involvement of this service and elected representatives, the resident would not have received any responses to his complaints. Even with this intervention, the landlord’s responses were delayed. Furthermore, the landlord failed to offer any redress to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by these errors.
Based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, the landlord must pay the resident £600 in recognition of the failures highlighted within this report relating to its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

Within 5 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this investigation. The apology should be made the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer, and should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available to view on our website.
2. Pay the resident the following compensation:
  1. £800 for its poor handling of repairs to resolve the leak in his property. This amount is inclusive of the landlord’s earlier offer of £200 which can deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.
  2. £1260.20, which is equivalent to 100% of the rent charged for the period from 23 October 2023 to 3 January 2024.
  3. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused due to its poor handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
  4. £600 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.

Ensure that all compensation payments are made directly to the resident and not offset against any outstanding debt that may be owed to the landlord.

Share the findings and recommendations of its previous inspections with the resident. It should discuss with the resident any recommendations made by its surveyors to address the damp and mould in his property and the works it has already undertaken to complete these. It should clearly set out reasons for any works it will not undertake and follow this discussion up in writing.
Carry out another inspection of the resident’s property to satisfy itself that the damp and mould has been fully resolved. From this it should create an action plan to resolve the damp and mould in the resident’s property, if this has not been fully addressed.

The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance of the above orders to the Ombudsman within 5 weeks of the date of this decision.