Bromford Housing Group Limited (202348137)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348137

Bromford Housing Group Limited

15 November 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:
1. Resident’s reports of damp and mould and its handling of the related repairs.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She occupied the 2-bedroom property with her infant son. The resident was supported by a representative during the complaint who contacted the landlord on her behalf. However, for ease this report will refer to ‘the resident’ when referring to the actions of both individuals.
According to available records, in early January 2023 the resident reported a mould problem affecting both bedrooms. She said it was possibly due to poor ventilation in the bathroom from a faulty extractor fan. Subsequently, the landlord appointed an engineer to replace the fan in mid-March 2023. The landlord has not provided any records of the visit. However, contact records from around this time show the resident reported that the engineer said the mould problem would not be addressed by replacing the fan.
On 30 March 2023, the resident complained that:
1. She had not heard anything since the engineer’s visit 2 weeks prior.
2. There was a lack of urgency to address the damp and mould problem.
3. Her young son had not been able to sleep in his own room because of mould.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 14 June 2023, it said:
1. After an initial inspection, a damp specialist had been appointed. When the landlord received the specialist report, the damp and mould taskforce would be in touch to arrange proposed works.
2. A bathroom extractor fan had been fitted on 25 May 2023.

The landlord apologised the resident felt she had no other option but to make a complaint. It said it would seek to learn from her concerns to improve its services.

Between August 2023 and November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord several times asking for updates and information about the repairs. After some confusion about whether the resident had escalated her concerns to stage 2, the landlord did so on 29 November 2023. The resident also subsequently complained that a leak through the living room ceiling meant that it needed to be removed and it contained asbestos. She said this further added to her discomfort in living in the property. The resident indicated she wanted to be moved.
The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 3 May 2024 acknowledged:
1. Both stages of the complaints process were significantly delayed, which it said was largely due to staffing issues.
2. It did not progress the mould problem as promptly as it should have after a damp and mould referral form was submitted in March 2023. Most works were completed in December 2023.
3. There was evidence that the resident’s personal belongings had been damaged by mould. While she had not provided evidence to support an insurance claim, it would offer a gesture of goodwill payment in the interim.

The landlord also advised that any outstanding repairs were put on hold at the resident’s request because she was going through the landlord’s ‘Managed Move’ process. This included the living room ceiling. The landlord apologised, advised it would look for learning to share with the teams involved, and offered compensation of £975. This was made up of: £575 for delays in the complaint handling, £50 for failed appointments, £30 for lack of communication, £120 for lack of progress with the damp and mould, and £200 for damaged belongings.

After the complaints process ended, the resident was moved into a different property owned by the landlord. The date of the move is unknown, however it was in the summer of 2024. The landlord also revised its offer for reimbursement for damaged belongings after receiving further evidence from the resident. Compensation was awarded for further communication issues the resident experienced in response to her supporting evidence for her claim.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service because she did not feel the amount of compensation awarded was proportionate to the impact on her family. She advised that she is concerned her young child’s health may have been affected. The outcome she is seeking is further compensation and for the landlord to be held to account.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

According to the resident, mould was a problem since she moved into the property in late 2021. This Service does not doubt the resident’s account. The available records, however, show that the earliest report of a mould problem was made on 3 January 2023. This was not something the resident specifically complained about in her original complaint to the landlord. This is also true of a new issue the resident informed us about regarding the landlord’s decision not to cover her costs for moving. As we have advised in earlier contact with the resident, she will need to raise any new matters with the landlord. This is because, in the interest of fairness, the landlord should be given an opportunity to investigate and respond first. There are time limits on when a landlord and the Ombudsman may investigate a complaint (usually 12 months from the date they became aware of a problem) which means some issues may now be out of time.
The resident said her son’s health could have been affected by the damp and mould. She also said her belongings have been damaged and was seeking a full reimbursement of the costs she paid for these items. The resident’s concerns about these matters are acknowledged. It is though outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish if someone’s health has been affected by a landlord’s failings. Such matters are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine. Claims for damage to personal belongings are usually best dealt with through an insurer, either through a resident’s contents cover or via the landlord’s liability insurance. Consideration has though been given to the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns. If appropriate, remedies ordered by this Service will be to put right the distress and inconvenience arising from any service failings on the part of the landlord.

Damp and mould repairs

Landlords have a legal obligation to carry out repairs to a property they rent out under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985). Repairs should be completed within a “reasonable” timeframe, although this is not defined in law. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time did not specify a timescale within which it intended to complete routine/standard works. It referred to these as “appointed” repairs. Its policy said it would attend “as required by the customer and availability of resources”. As a guide, this Service benchmarks repair timescales against best practice in social housing, which is to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. More complex repairs, such as ones requiring specialist input and surveys, are expected to take longer. Best practice is for more complex works to take up to 90 working days.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. It recommended that landlords take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying and addressing problems causing damp and mould, and clearly communicate to residents about its actions.
In her initial report, the resident advised that her son was unable to sleep in his own room because of the mould. When the resident complained about the lack of urgency shown by the landlord on 30 March 2023, almost 3 months had passed since she reported mould effecting both bedrooms. During that time, records show the landlord asked the resident questions to establish the nature and cause of the problem on 1 February 2023. It also gave advice about managing condensation. Assessing the problem was in line with the landlord’s responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced under the Housing Act 2004, because damp and mould are potentially a risk to health. Under this legislation the landlord has an obligation to mitigate the potential risk when reported by one of its tenants. The advice it gave to manage condensation was reasonable because the repairs policy at the time said a resident was responsible for “heat[ing] and ventilat[ing] the home to reduce the potential for damp and condensation”.
Following its assessment, the results of which were not shown in the available records, the landlord instructed an engineer to replace the fan in March 2023. This was appropriate in the circumstances that the resident had reported that it was not working and could have been the cause of the problem. This Service is satisfied the landlord took some appropriate steps to address the damp and mould problem. However, the available evidence, or lack thereof, indicates the landlord was not as proactive or communicative as we would expect. This was unreasonable in the circumstances, particularly as the landlord was aware the resident had concerns for her child.
In April 2023, the landlord commissioned a damp and mould survey from an independent damp specialist, which we have seen. This identified mould growth in the 2 bedrooms, bathroom, and living room. The specialist advised the mould was caused by varied factors. In some rooms they found it to be due to lack of adequate heating and ventilation. In others it found structural defects, such as a possible leak from the roof causing damp in the child’s bedroom. The specialist recommended a range of works, including replacing the broken bathroom extractor fan, inspecting the roof for repairs, using a thermal lining paper/or treating the plaster to reduce the cold spots, and mould treatments. While it effected several rooms, the specialist rated it a “low priority”. Nothing in the report that indicates the property or any particular rooms were uninhabitable.
Where inspections result in recommended works, the Ombudsman expects landlords to act in a timely manner. However, the Spotlight report recognised that the causes can be complex to identify and resolve. In such cases, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out interim repairs and actions to improve conditions for residents, such as mould treatment or temporary rehousing.
Only the bathroom fan had been replaced by the time the stage 1 response was issued on 14 June 2023. Replacing the bathroom fan may have helped alleviate some of the damp for the resident. However, the time it took overall, around 5 months, was unreasonable in the circumstances that this was known to be possibly causing the problem. While the landlord appropriately apologised for the delays up to that point, the stage 1 was factually incorrect because it said an independent survey was yet to be completed. In fact, it had been 2 months since it was completed. According to the stage 2 response from early May 2024, the report was received on the same day as the stage 1 was sent. It has not been possible to establish with certainty why the findings of the independent report were delayed. Either way, it is an indication of a failure on the landlord’s part from a lack of oversight over its contractor. The landlord did though take accountability for the delay, which was in line with section 9.8 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This says that landlords should “take collective responsibility for any shortfalls identified through complaints”.
After the stage 1 response, the resident received no update from the landlord until she chased it for one in early August 2023. There were also occasions, particularly in August and November 2023, when the resident received no responses to her contact for several weeks. This was clearly unacceptable and would have further added to her distress. After the landlord confirmed the schedule of agreed works in mid-August 2023, she expressed concern that these were not in line with those recommended by the damp specialist. The landlord is entitled to rely on the findings of its appointed experts and contractors when deciding on what repairs to undertake. We have though seen no evidence it explained its approach to the repairs or answered the resident’s questions. This was unreasonable, particularly in this case where the resident’s trust in the landlord had broken down by this point. In the comprehensive final response, the landlord acknowledged that it had “let [the resident] down” continuously, including in its handling of her correspondence. The Ombudsman finds then that the landlord has appropriately recognised its failings in its communication.
In terms of the repairs, the landlord advised in the stage 2 response that in December 2023 some of the damp and mould repairs were completed. It said this included mould treatments and visits to measure up for replacing the window and sealant around several others. The repair log confirms these works were raised, but they do not show if and when they were completed. Other available evidence, however, suggests that mould treatments were carried out. This may have helped improve the resident’s living conditions. However, the landlord had previously confirmed that it sought to undertake a range of repairs based on the damp specialists’ findings but we have seen no evidence of these works being raised. The final response was also silent on these works. It is not evident then that the landlord was proactively seeking to address the problems causing damp and mould. This is a failing.
The landlord said in its final response that the outstanding repairs, which it said included the removal of an asbestos ceiling, were put on hold in late February 2024, at the resident’s request. It advised this was because, at that time, she was intending to move to another of the landlord’s properties and did not wish to be subjected to the upheaval. We were not given any records supporting this; however, we have also not seen any challenge from the resident that this was not a factual account. Nevertheless, the landlord had already taken an inappropriate amount of time up to that point. The Ombudsman can then understand the resident’s position, having lived with the problem for so long. Even so, in the circumstances the landlord would still be expected to take steps to stop the problem from worsening. There is no evidence that it undertook any further interim repairs after the mould treatments in December 2023, which is a further failing.
The landlord took responsibility for the delays in the repairs and apologised for it impacting on the resident’s enjoyment of her home. It also acknowledged her concern for her son’s health. This was appropriate and its apology recognised the significant impact its failings had on the resident. Where service failure is identified, the landlord’s compensation policy stated it would make payments with consideration to the Ombudsman’s “Guidance on remedies”. The landlord offered compensation of £120 for the delays between April 2023 and October 2023. It also offered £30 for the lack of communication between June 2023 and August 2023.
While it was appropriate to offer a financial award, the overall amount was not proportionate to the impact on the resident, in the Ombudsman’s view. The landlord missed opportunities to undertake interim repairs or actions, such as applying the mould treatment or replacing the fan sooner. There is also no evidence that it was proactive in coordinating repairs to prevent the damp altogether. Further, the lack of communication added to the distress unnecessarily. The Ombudsman then orders the landlord to pay further redress.
In her correspondence, as well as in her complaint, the resident had repeatedly reminded the landlord that she felt her son was unable to sleep in his bedroom. Nothing in the damp specialist report suggests the bedroom was not usable. However, it was understandable that the resident would have been concerned about the effect of mould on her son. The landlord’s failure to take timely action to treat the mould and to address the cause of the damp would likely have led to the problem worsening. In its final response, the landlord also recognised the resident was impacted by a loss of enjoyment of her home. Therefore, this Service finds it appropriate to award further compensation.
The landlord is ordered to pay a further £720. This represents around 10% of the rent paid over a 15-month period that the resident’s enjoyment of her home was impacted by the landlord’s failings. The timeframe is made with consideration to when the landlord could reasonably have taken some or more action to address the issues. This was calculated using an approximate monthly rent of £480 (minus any service charge) which is based on the weekly amount the resident was charged from 2023. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account. This approach to awarding compensation for loss of enjoyment is also in line with our remedies guidance.
In terms of the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs for her damaged belongings, the landlord’s compensation policy stated that generally tenants will be encouraged to claim through their contents insurance. The policy did give discretion for compensation to be paid for damaged belongings. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to consider reimbursing the resident for the items she said had been damaged by mould. It was also entitled to request evidence from the resident, and its policy also indicated this would be needed for it to consider such claims. The landlord’s offer of a gesture of goodwill toward the costs, and commitment to revisit this pending receipt of evidence, was in the Ombudsman’s view an acceptable approach. There was no maladministration, therefore, in the landlord’s response to this aspect.
Clear and accurate record–keeping are an important function of a repairs service. The landlord should ensure that it has details of what action it took and when. This is so it and this Service can measure how well it is doing in meeting its repair obligations and its policy of completing repairs when resources allowed. However, the Ombudsman was not provided with evidence that enables us to establish when repairs were undertaken. This means the only information available was, largely, in the landlord’s complaint responses. That the landlord has not maintained such an audit trail or provided copies of relevant records is a record–keeping failure. This is consistent with a previous case investigated by this Service. In that case, we made a wider order under 54.f. of the Scheme for the landlord to review its record-keeping practices. It has since complied with this order. We have not then made any further orders for the landlord to improve in this area but encourage it to take any learning from this investigation to include in its ongoing work.
The landlord shared a draft version of its “Condensation, damp and mould policy” with this Service. Implementing a separate policy to tackle damp and mould was one of the recommendations we made in our Spotlight report. While this is a positive step and is encouraging, it is unclear if this has since gone live from the evidence shared and the landlord’s website. In its current state, however, the policy is not sufficient in the Ombudsman’s view to address the wider failings in its handling of this case. Like the repairs policy, it does not refer to any timescales against which to measure its success or failure. The landlord is then ordered to review its handling of the repairs and advise this Service what changes it will or has already made that will avoid a repeat of the issues that occurred in this case.

Associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will follow the Code’s timescales. This means it committed to responding to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. At both stages it could extend the timescale by a maximum of 10 working days, with the agreement of the resident.
Both stages of the complaint were significantly delayed and the resident was not consulted on any extensions. At stage 1 the landlord took around 30 working days longer than it should. Taking the resident’s escalation date from mid to late August 2023, it took the landlord around 130 working days longer than its maximum response time. Even taking the date the landlord formally escalated the complaint of 29 November 2023; it far surpassed its timescales by around 80 working days. This was clearly unreasonable and caused further distress to the resident that could have been avoided.
In the Ombudsman’s January 2024 Spotlight report on “Attitudes, respect and rights” we highlighted that an “overarching theme” from our work was around failings in the manner and frequency with which landlord’s communicated with resident’s. The report made recommendations to case handlers to be honest about when things have gone wrong and to tailor communications to the individual and their circumstances. It said that “Underpinning all of these [actions] should be a baseline of empathy and respect.”
As highlighted earlier in this investigation report, there were many occasions where responses to the resident’s emails to the complaints team were delayed. There were also lengthy periods where she received no response until after sending several chasers. She sometimes referenced in her contact the impact living with a worsening damp and mould problem was having on her and her young son. The landlord did not always treat the resident with empathy and respect, which was a failing and likely contributed to the breakdown in the relationship. While it did recognise this impact in its final response, we encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report, unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.
In the final response, the landlord acknowledged both stages were significantly delayed, and communication provided was poor, which was appropriate. It explained the root cause was increased demand and lack of resources which impacted staff’s ability to respond on time to complaints and correspondence. The Ombudsman recognises that social landlords have limited resources and that an increase in demand can stretch these and interrupt its service delivery. However, we do not accept this was a good enough reason to account for the extent of the failure. The landlord could have taken other action to reduce the impact on the resident. For example, best practice would have been, as defined in section 5.15 of the Code (2022), for the landlord to “provide the Housing Ombudsman’s contact details so residents can challenge the landlord’s plan for responding and/or timeliness of a landlord’s response”. Even so, the landlord did recognise, as it should have done, that the resident should not have borne the brunt of its problems with staffing.
The landlord said in its response that it was recruiting more staff, reviewing its complaint processes, and looking to restructure. In early November 2024, the landlord advised this Service that it had implemented some changes to its complaints processes and procedure, including better governance. It is clear that the landlord has sought to improve its complaints service and has made positive steps that will help to avoid a repeat of the resident’s poor experiences. Therefore, no orders will be made for the landlord to make changes to its complaints processes. The Ombudsman will though monitor the landlord’s complaint handling through our work.
The amount the landlord awarded for its complaint handling failings of £575 was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It appropriately recognises the impact of the landlord’s maladministration on the resident over an extended period. Therefore, the actions the landlord took overall were reasonable to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the related repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident apologising for the failures identified in this report in not proactively arranging repairs to address the damp and mould problem.
2. Pay the resident £720 for the loss of enjoyment experienced because of delays in the damp and mould repairs.
3. Explain how any current processes or policies will avoid the failures that occurred in the repairs, both in terms of the delays and communication with the resident about them. Alternatively, explain what changes it will make going forward.
The landlord should share evidence with this Service that it has complied with the above orders.