Bromford Housing Group Limited (202407342)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407342

Bromford Housing Group Limited

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. Her tenancy began in September 2022. She lives at the property with 2 young children, one of which has asthma. The property is a 2-bedroom semi-detached house.
For context, the resident first reported mould on 28 December 2022. She said the bedroom balcony door would not shut properly and there was “bad mould.” It was not clear exactly what action the landlord took. But there was no evidence of any further reports until 22 November 2023, almost a year later. The resident said:
1. The bathroom had lots of mould, along with other rooms.
2. She had a newborn baby and a young child with asthma and was scared for their health.
An internal email showed the landlord requested a condensation, damp, and mould form (CDM) be completed by a staff member on 14 December 2023. After further contact from the resident, the landlord attended on 16 January 2024. It completed the CDM form and took pictures of the mould. It also noted:
1. The house was neat, tidy, and not cluttered.
2. The trickle vents were open.
3. The bathroom extractor fan was always on.
4. There was condensation, damp, and mould throughout the upstairs ceiling and around all windows.
After no further action the resident complained on 15 February 2024. She said she had 2 vulnerable children and had thrown away items damaged by mould.
The landlord tried to contact the resident on 12 March 2024 to arrange a damp and mould inspection. It sent its stage 1 complaint response on 18 March 2024 and said:
1. A damp and mould case was opened on 14 December 2023.
2. A CDM form was completed on a home visit on 16 January 2024.
3. It had tried to contact the resident on 12 March 2024 to arrange a surveyor appointment without success. It would arrange a surveyor to attend when it was able to contact her.
4. The resident should claim on her contents insurance for damaged items.
5. It apologised the stage 1 response was late and offered £50 compensation.
The landlord’s surveyor attended on 9 April 2024 to inspect the property. The report recommended internal and external remedial work.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 19 June 2024 after no action. She said she felt the £50 compensation the landlord offered was insulting. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 July 2024, in which it said:
1. It had chased the surveyor for a copy of the report. This was delayed as the surveyor had been on annual leave.
2. It apologised for its communication.
3. It had raised a work order on 26 June 2024 to install new vents in the kitchen and bathroom. This was completed on 8 July 2024.
4. On 5 July 2024 it asked an external contractor for a quote for:
  1. Ensuring there was a sufficient damp proof course on all external walls.
  2. Adjusting paving around the property to ensure it was fitted correctly around the damp proof course.
  3. Cleaning the roof.
  4. Installing a new Juliet balcony door with trickle vents.
  5. Supply and fit of 11 trickle vents to all other windows.
  6. Supply and install ventilation roof tiles.
  7. Apply mould treatment and redecorate areas affected by damp and mould.
  8. Check insulation and ventilation in roof spaces.
  9. Arrange an engineer to assess radiator sizes and locations in all rooms.
5. It said it would chase the contractor on 2 August 2024 and provide an update.
6. It offered £375 compensation made up of:
  1. £250 for the delays in taking action.
  2. £75 for delays in work orders being actioned between April and June 2024.
  3. £50 for poor communication and updates.
7. In relation to the resident’s claim for items damaged by damp and mould, it said it would review the claim once she completed an attached form with details of damaged items.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident chased for updates on 9 August, 23 August and 5 September 2024. The landlord obtained the external contractor quote around 11 September 2024. However, it decided it was too high, and it wanted its own surveyor to attend and assess exactly what work was required.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 October 2024 and said the surveyor had attended twice. The surveyor provided a revised list of work required to the landlord on 14 October 2024. He then requested the work orders be raised on 28 October 2024. On 31 October 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and said it had “lost access to its systems due to some changes and a new system going live.”
Some of the work was completed on 18 February 2025. However, the resident remained unhappy not all the work she had expected had been carried out. A few days later she said:
1. She still had a mould patch on the stairs ceiling.
2. Roof vents had not been installed.
3. She thought new loft insulation had been added on top of old mouldy insulation.
4. There was no mould downstairs, just on the first floor.
On 24 February 2025 the landlord paid an additional £736.90 compensation made up of:
1. £611.90 towards items damaged by damp and mould.
2. £100 for complaint handling delays.
3. £25 for work delays.

This took the total compensation paid to £1,111.90.

In April 2025 the resident said the work identified by the second surveyor (a. to e. of paragraph 22) had been completed. The landlord explained it did not believe the positive input ventilation (PIV) system was required. She is going to contact the landlord if any damp or mould appears.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

During contact with the landlord and this service, the resident raised the issue about the impact the condition of the property had on her and her children’s health. We do not doubt these comments and empathise with her situation. But we also cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s action/lack of action and her or her children’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
The events of December 2022 are noted above for context, but there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made until February 2024. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. Therefore, we will consider events from November 2023 onwards when the resident reported damp and mould again.

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

Landlords should keep good records. This enables them to effectively manage any issues raised by their residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. Neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records, and this could result in unfairness to the resident. Whilst the record keeping in this case was overall of a good standard, there were several gaps where there was no record of what happened. However, we know the landlord had IT system issues around October 2024. It has therefore not been possible to fully understand what action was taken at every stage of the handling of reports of damp and mould, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth is a potential category 1 hazard. The landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
The landlord’s initial handling of the mould reports was poor. It took almost 2 months to attend and inspect the property after the resident’s reports in November 2023. Given she had 2 young children, this was an unreasonable delay. It was then not clear what action (if any) it took after it attended and completed the CDM form. The lack of updates caused the resident to call and chase which caused inconvenience. This led to the formal complaint being raised.
Although the stage 1 response was slightly late, the landlord used its complaint process to put things right for the resident, which was positive. It explained it tried to contact her to arrange a surveyor visit, and a surveyor would attend when an appointment could be arranged. This showed the landlord took the damp and mould seriously and was trying to address the issue. However, it was a further 3 weeks before the surveyor attended. The exact reason for the delay was unclear. The landlord should have prioritised the survey given the resident’s circumstances and the slow response time since the initial report in November 2023.
The surveyor attended on 9 April 2024 and completed a detailed report. The report identified mould on the landing ceiling, around the balcony door of bedroom 1, around the windows of bedroom 2, and on the bathroom ceiling and walls. The surveyor completed a risk assessment and recommended extensive work. However, whilst the surveyor attended on 9 April 2024, there was no evidence the report was submitted to the landlord until 17 June 2024, over 2 months later. There was no evidence the landlord chased for the report until 29 May, over 7 weeks after the surveyor attended. During this time, the resident chased the landlord and contacted us for assistance. In an email to the landlord on 19 June 2024 she said:
1. She was frustrated nothing had been done.
2. Enough time had passed.
3. She did not think she was being unreasonable.
4. She had emailed the surveyor herself but had no response.

There was little evidence the resident was kept updated during this time. This increased her frustration, led to the complaint escalation, and was a failing.

In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it raised work orders on 26 June 2024 for some of the remedial work identified during the surveyors visit. It is important a landlord maintains its commitments set out in its complaint responses. In this case, it failed to do so. It said it would contact the resident by 2 August 2024 with an update, however there was no evidence it did so. The resident chased on 9 and 23 August, and 5 September 2024. The evidence showed the landlord was chasing the contractor and it responded promptly to the resident’s emails. However, it was reactive in its communication with the resident, rather than proactive which caused the resident further inconvenience.
The landlord received the work quote around 11 September 2024. Internal emails showed it wanted to send another surveyor as the quote was high. Landlords have a limited budget and a responsibility to manage its resources effectively. While this contributed to further delays, it was entitled to obtain a second opinion for recommended work. The resident said the surveyor attended twice around mid-September 2024. He provided a second opinion on 14 October 2024 that “a lot of the remedial work identified in the first survey was redundant and not required.” He recommended a list of essential work be completed which included to:
1. Clean, prep, and treat mould affected areas in first floor bedrooms, and landing ceiling.
2. Ensure loft insulation was evenly distributed.
3. Checks to soil vent pipe and air admittance valves.
4. Install an airing cupboard vent.
5. Reseal, overhaul and service the Juliet balcony doors.
6. Installation of a positive input ventilation (PIV) system.
There was no evidence the landlord took any action in response to the surveyor’s email or raised the recommended repairs. The surveyor emailed again on 28 October 2024, however again there was no evidence any repairs were raised. We acknowledge this was around the time the landlord had issues with its systems. However, it took the surveyor at least a month to send the landlord a list of work after he attended. There was no evidence the landlord chased or prioritised the repairs, which was a failing.
The resident then attended a drop-in session at a community centre and said she had raised the damp and mould issue a year ago. She said the damp and mould had caused health issues for her family. The landlord chased the repairs internally on 12 November 2024. The landlord’s repair records around the time were confusing. The repair log showed some repairs (a. b. and e. of the above list in paragraph 22) were raised the following day. An email of 18 November 2024 showed jobs a. to e. were scheduled for 11 December 2024. However, the repair log showed jobs b. and c. raised on 11 December 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to try and complete all repairs the same day.
The resident emailed the second surveyor directly on 17 January 2025 as she felt some of the jobs he recommended had been “brushed under the carpet.” A month later the landlord noted repairs were going ahead on 18 February 2025. However, it was unclear exactly which repairs these were. 3 days later the resident said roof vents had not been installed, and she was unhappy with loft insulation work. The landlord attended the property promptly and managed the resident’s expectations. It said roof vents were not required and reassured her regarding the loft insulation, which was positive.
There is no timeframe set out in the landlord’s repair policy to say when it will complete a damp and mould inspection. However, landlords should complete inspections within a reasonable timeframe. The law does not specifically define what is considered a reasonable time, but this should depend on how serious or urgent the problem is and how vulnerable the people living in the property are. In this case, the landlord was aware that there were children under 10 years old in the property and one had asthma. It also knew damp and mould was in the bedrooms. The landlord’s original inspection took place 2 months after it logged the damp and mould. The surveyor’s inspection took place 4.5 months after the resident’s report. This was an unreasonable delay and a failure by the landlord.
We welcome and encourage landlords to revisit opportunities for the resolution of a complaint after the stage 2 response. A landlord is entitled to review its position. The stage 2 response was sent in July 2024, yet work was not completed until February 2025, around 7 months later. It was positive the landlord decided to award further compensation. It was also positive the landlord paid compensation towards items damaged by damp and mould and changed its position from the stage 1 complaint. However, it failed to consider any further compensation for delays, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family.
In this case there was no evidence the landlord:
1. Carried out a health and safety assessment in line with HHSRS guidance.
2. Considered whether it needed to complete an urgent mould wash.
3. Failed to consider whether the resident needed dehumidifiers to address moisture and humidity levels in the property.
4. There were also unreasonable delays in the landlord:
  1. Attending the property to investigate the reports of damp and mould after the initial report.
  2. Sending the first surveyor to identify the causes of damp and mould.
  3. Sending a second surveyor after it believed the quote was too high.
  4. Carrying out the work required. It took over a year and 3 months to complete work to address the damp and mould at the property.
5. It failed to keep in regular contact with the resident and failed to chase external contractors/surveyors effectively.
6. There was also confusion as to who was responsible for raising/monitoring work orders with no one taking responsibility.
In May 2023 the landlord completed a gap analysis against recommendations made by us in our Spotlight on Damp and Mould report, from October 2021 and the follow up report from February 2023. The landlord has provided further updates in September 2023, May 2024, and December 2024. It has worked on a CDM policy and made a number of other significant improvements which is positive.
In this case the matter was stressful and caused significant impact to the resident and her family over a prolonged period of time. The damp and mould remained unresolved from at least November 2023 to at least February 2025. The resident’s enjoyment of her home was also affected. Taking everything into account there was maladministration and an order for further £500 compensation is made. This would have been severe maladministration but for the landlord’s previous compensation offer, and its decision to review the amount to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed £500 compensation for the further distress and inconvenience caused by the delays addressing the damp and mould.