Bromford Housing Group Limited (202320275)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320275

Bromford Housing Group Limited

29 May 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Associated Complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a 2-storey block. The landlord, a housing association, owns the building and is aware of the resident’s mobility and health concerns.
The resident complained to the landlord on 20 May 2021. We have not had sight of the original complaint, but this related to a request for a surveyor to inspect damp and mould in his home.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 16 June 2021. It said it was aware that he had been experiencing issues with damp and mould for many years. It detailed the actions it had taken from 2019 to 2021 and said it found no underlying problem. Its latest inspection in June 2021 recommended to upgrade the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans, and treat a mould affected area in the bathroom. It said it would conduct a further inspection and gave advice about contacting Environmental Health for independent advice.
The date of the resident’s escalation request is unknown. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 6 September 2021 stating that it would not escalate the complaint as he had failed to communicate and there was no evidence of inaction or lack of service.
The resident continued to contact the landlord throughout 2022 and 2023 expressing his dissatisfaction. He said the damp and mould was affecting his health. He repeated his concerns and requested compensation for his damaged belongings and the distress he experienced over the years.
Following contact from this Service, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 8 January 2024. It apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 response. It said it had completed multiple inspections from 2012 to 2021 which resulted in minor remedial works. It said that there had been a number of cancelled, refused, and missed appointments and it had tried to work with the resident but this was not to his satisfaction or agreement. It issued a tenancy breach letter in August 2023 as he continued to refuse access. It apologised for the delays and offered £5,610 compensation comprising:
1. £150 for lack of communication.
2. £250 for the “decant” and support towards rent.
3. £200 for failed appointments.
4. £500 for poor record keeping.
5. £130 for cleaning products.
6. £40 for an air purifier.
7. £60 for wallpaper.
8. £1,500 for loss of belongings.
9. £2,640 for distress and inconvenience since reporting damp and mould since 2012.
Following the landlord’s final response to the resident, both parties continued to liaise about the completion of the required work and level of compensation. The resident asked the landlord to increase its offer to £6,500. On 19 July 2024 the landlord increased its offer to £6,850.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He wants it to be held accountable for its failings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s correspondence he explained that the damp and mould was affecting his physical and mental health. He reported suffering from mould poisoning, headaches, sinus problems, blurry vision, chest tightness and other symptoms. He said he was having trouble sleeping and the situation was affecting his asthma.
The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the resident’s complaint that the landlord’s inaction affected his health is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any inconvenience or likely distress caused as a result of any failings by the landlord.
The resident said that he had been reporting damp and mould in his home for 15 years. While we do not dispute this, we are unable to consider this timeframe. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the events from 2021, the resident’s most recent reports of damp and mould, up to the landlord’s final response on 15 December 2023. Any events prior to this or following the landlord’s final response are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.
The resident raised new concerns to us including his rent account and adaptations. These matters did not form part of his original complaint. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns. He will need to contact the landlord about these additional matters and, if appropriate, raise another complaint to us if he is dissatisfied with the way it responds.

Reports of damp and mould

It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Following the resident’s complaint in May 2021, the evidence shows that the landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s home in June 2021. The inspection stated that the primary cause of damp and mould was due to excess moisture and condensation.
The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that the resident had been experiencing damp and mould for many years. It explained that it had completed inspections in 2019 which indicated a high level of humidity in the property and low air temperature. It suggested that the property may not be heated sufficiently or adequately ventilated. It said that none of its surveys to date had found any underlying issue that was contributing to the level of condensation.
The landlord said that in March 2021 the resident asked for a visit due to mould being present in every room. Due to COVID-19 restrictions it was unable to complete a survey until 1 June 2021. It again found no defects in the home, but its contractor recommended the upgrade of the extractor fans and to treat a mould affected area of the bathroom. It scheduled the work for 23 June 2021.
The landlord said that it understood that the resident felt there was a bigger issue in his home. It had completed multiple surveys which concluded condensation. It gave advice on actions he could take to reduce this and said its newly appointed specialist would complete a further inspection. It also gave advice about contacting Environmental Health for independent advice and asking them to complete a survey. It explained that it was unable to compensate the resident for damaged belongings as its reports confirmed no defects in his home.
The landlord’s response demonstrates that it investigated its repairs records. Its advice was reasonable as was its offer to complete a further inspection.
The evidence shows that the landlord attempted to arrange a further inspection in August 2021 but failed to gain access until 22 September 2021. Its contractor stated that damp and mould was identified throughout the property. This was most prominent in the bedroom and living room but was also identified in the hallway. They added that the resident was regularly cleaning the affected areas. They suspected that the build-up of mould may be a direct cause of thermal/cold bridging and suggested there may be an issue with insulation. It added that there was a large amount of personal belongings which could restrict natural airflow and cause mould and damp related issues. It recommended a thermographic survey internally and externally to identify the areas that could be affected by cold bridging.
This demonstrates that there was likely an underlying problem which is contradictory to the landlord’s stage 1 response. We have not seen any evidence that a thermographic survey was completed but note that insulation work was carried out which is discussed later in this report.
In November 2021 the landlord assured the resident that it was taking the issues seriously and was waiting for feedback from its investment team. Its contractor was scheduled to visit on 6 December 2021 to scope the required works. However, on 6 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident advising that if the contractor had not been in touch, it would not be attending. This likely added to the resident’s frustration and does not demonstrate effective communication.
On 5 January 2022 the landlord confirmed that the insulation work was complete, and the resident should start to notice a difference in heat retention. It was waiting for its contractor to confirm a date for the rest of the work and apologised for the length of time this was taking. In February and March 2022, the resident continued to report his health concerns to the landlord. He sent photographs of black mould in his bedroom and said he had been to hospital with breathing issues. The landlord’s response said the works were on plan to resolve the damp and mould. However, the resident continued to chase in July 2022. He confirmed that the blown windowpanes had been replaced and the windows resealed, but no further work had been done.
The landlord’s records of 18 July 2022 show that it completed much of the work. However, the treatment of mould and redecoration in the bedroom and lounge had not been completed due to the amount of the resident’s personal belongings. Further records of July 2022 show that it had several conversations with the resident about removing his belongings to enable it to complete the work.
On 12 October 2022 the resident asked the landlord to compensate him from 2015, rather than from 2021 when he raised his complaint. He said that until it confirmed this, the matter would not move forward. In November 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it needed to work with him to decide how it would move his belongings to progress the repairs. It had spoken to him about the need to de-clutter as it was a contributing factor to the damp and mould.
The landlord and resident continued to liaise about required work and his belongings from January to May 2023. While the landlord showed that it was committed to completing the work, the resident continued to request compensation and commitments from it before allowing the work to proceed.
It was agreed in May 2023 that the resident would move to temporary accommodation while the work was completed, and for his belongings to be stored. The landlord confirmed in June 2023 that it wanted to commence work at the beginning of July 2023 and required confirmation that it could remove the wallpaper in the lounge and the TV. On 6 July 2023 the landlord again outlined the work it proposed to complete and said it would replace the wallpaper with a roll of the resident’s choice. It also confirmed work to the front and rear doors which were not part of his original complaint. It confirmed it would take 7 to 10 days to complete the work and it would cover expenses while in temporary accommodation. It asked him to confirm his agreement.
The landlord sent a breach of tenancy letter to the resident on 1 August 2023. It set out the actions it had taken to try and remedy the damp and mould since 2012. It said that his repeated declinations had impeded its ability to provide an effective solution and conclusion. It said this was in violation of the terms outlined in the tenancy agreement. It addressed the “abundance” of personal belongings, storage offer, compensation, and its attempts to complete work. This had resulted in a standstill in resolving the damp and mould. It urged him to reconsider his stance and cooperate to address the longstanding issues.
The following week the resident agreed to the removal of wallpaper, storage of the TV and other belongings. The date of the temporary accommodation is not known but the resident returned home on 30 September 2023. He continued to report issues with damp and mould in his home following his return.
On 20 November 2023 the landlord shared with the resident its itemised offer of compensation. This totalled £3,750 and included distress and inconvenience from May 2021. The resident responded on 28 November 2023 and provided his own detailed list requesting compensation in the amount of £9,480. This included distress and inconvenience from May 2013. The landlord increased its compensation offer on 12 December 2023 to £5,400 as a full and final offer. On 14 December 2023 the resident asked the landlord to increase its offer to £6,500. He added that if it did this “we have a deal”.
The landlord’s stage 2 response demonstrated that it had investigated its repairs history dating back to 2012. It repeated its stage 1 response and added that temporary accommodation had been agreed following a breach of tenancy letter and it provided support to store belongings. It set out the work it had completed and acknowledged there had been delays on both sides. It acknowledged that there had been a failure in its role as a landlord to exercise its right and responsibility to gain access to the property.
The landlord offered £5,610 compensation, as a gesture of good will, and taking into consideration the issues with condensation, damp and mould in the property, its complaint handling failure and understanding the distress and frustration this would have caused. It added that if the resident did not agree with the £1,500 toward loss of furniture and belongings, he could make a claim via its insurance claim process. It apologised for the delays.
While we appreciate there were delays by both parties, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its own delays. It was also appropriate to acknowledge that it failed to act sooner in relation to gaining access to the property given it was aware of the resident’s health concerns. Had it acted sooner the delay would not have been as significant.
The landlord’s compensation offer was reasonable given it was not in control of all of the events causing delays. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. It was also reasonable to offer compensation for damaged belongings given this is normally something dealt with via its insurance claim process.
Following the landlord’s final response, communication continued about the level of compensation. On 19 July 2024 the landlord increased its compensation offer to £6,840 comprising:
1. £400 for lack of communication.
2. £250 for the “decant” and support toward rent.
3. £400 for failed appointments.
4. £500 for poor record keeping.
5. £570 for cleaning products, air purifier, food, wallpaper.
6. £1,800 for loss of belongings.
7. £150 for repair to the doors.
8. £2,780 for distress and inconvenience since reporting damp and mould from 2012.
The landlord’s further offer exceeded the resident’s compensation request and demonstrates that it was committed to resolving the situation. The resident confirmed to us, on 22 May 2025, that there are no outstanding repairs. Given the landlord’s apology, completion of repairs, and its negotiated compensation offer, this demonstrates it has been fair and put things right. It also demonstrated some learning from the complaint in that it should have considered access issues sooner. We have, therefore, made a finding of reasonable redress.

Associated Complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code.
It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. Its stage 1 response was 8 days later than its complaint policy timescale. It also declined to escalate the resident’s complaint in September 2021 due to his lack of communication and as there was no evidence of lack of service. This would likely have added to the resident’s frustration. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have escalated the complaint and provided its stage 2 response explaining the reasons why it had been unable to progress the repairs.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also stated that it was unable to see that it had received or formally logged a request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It said that the request came via this Service. This was not appropriate as its records clearly demonstrate that it declined to escalate the complaint in September 2021. It continued to correspond about the complaint throughout 2022 and 2023. It is not known why the landlord did not provide a stage 2 response given the resident continued to express his dissatisfaction. It missed multiple opportunities to provide its response sooner.
The landlord’s records of May 2023 also show that it was managing the complaint and his request for compensation. It said it did not negotiate compensation until the complaint was nearing conclusion and works were complete. At this point it was 2 years since the initial complaint. This is a failing and is not compliant with the Complaint Handling Code which states a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
We contacted the landlord and asked it to provide a complaint response to the resident. It would have been appropriate to raise a new stage 1 response given the period of time which had elapsed since May 2021. However, we acknowledge its decision to provide a stage 2 response to address and respond to the resident’s assertion that he had been reporting the matters over a prolonged period of time.
The landlord’s stage 2 response appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its complaint handling failures. It said that this would be taken forward as lessons learnt to its complaint handling team. While the landlord did not specify an amount for its complaint handling failure in its compensation offer, its offer included £400 for lack of communication and £500 for record keeping. We have considered these amounts to relate to its failings and to be a reasonable offer in line with our remedies guidance as set out above. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in the circumstances.
We have made a recommendation for the landlord to be clear when setting out its compensation offers to ensure any complaint handling failures are specifically identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Associated complaint.

Recommendations

Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pays to the resident the sum of £6,850 offered in its letter dated 19 July 2024 (if this has not already been paid).
The landlord should ensure that its compensation offer breakdowns specify any element relating to complaint handling failures.