Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Birmingham City Council (202433722)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433722

Birmingham City Council

5 August 2025

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which began in November 2007. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The ground floor kitchen and bathroom are adjoining. The resident lives with her partner and children. The landlord was aware that the resident’s husband and children had various vulnerabilities and respiratory conditions including asthma.
  2. The resident reported damp in the property on 1 May 2024 and damp on the kitchen and living room walls on 29 July 2024. On 30 July 2024 a contractor completed mould treatment in the kitchen and to the bathroom door. It recommended installing extractor fans in both rooms due to high humidity levels.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 7 August 2024. She said:
    1. she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould since 2023 and said it only painted over the mould. She said there was recurring mould in the living room and extractor fans were needed in the kitchen and bathroom.
    2. household members had respiratory conditions, and a doctor had advised that exposure to damp and mould was triggering severe asthma.
  4. The resident reported mould in the property on 8 and 28 August 2024. On 29 August 2024 the landlord treated mould around the kitchen door and said it would return to address damp in the living room.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 29 August 2024. It said:
    1. it completed mould treatment on 30 July 2024 and was due to attend on 29 August 2024 following a further report of damp and mould.
    2. the resident must get written permission for extractor fans.
    3. it did not uphold the complaint as it said there were no service failures, and it had responded to reports of damp and mould in a timely manner.
  6. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 29 August 2024. She said her husband and child’s respiratory conditions were worsening due to mould exposure. She said a contractor had confirmed on 29 August 2024 that extractor fans were needed in the kitchen and bathroom and the landlord should instal these to prevent further harm to her family’s health.
  7. On 1 November 2024 the resident submitted a Right to Buy (RTB) application.
  8. On 21 November 2024 the resident told the landlord she also wanted to complain about the delays and lack of communication in its complaint handling.
  9. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 28 March 2025. It said:
    1. on 30 July 2024 contractors recommended installing extractor fans, but it would only fit them if there were repeated mould issues and mould present.
    2. it had not accepted the recommendation to instal fans as it was unable to access the property on 29 October 2024.
    3. it planned to get evidence of recurring damp and mould and confirm if fans were necessary on 29 January 2025 but delayed in contacting the contractor after this inspection.
    4. it had to approve recommended works and would arrange another visit to decide whether to instal extractor fans.
    5. it apologised that it had delayed in addressing the issue, for its failures of service and the trouble caused. It offered £310 compensation.
  10. On 28 March 2025 the landlord sent the resident a follow-up email to apologise for not acknowledging her escalation request and the delay in its stage 2 response. It said it had considered this in its compensation offer and set out learning from its complaint handling.
  11. The landlord told the resident on 25 April 2025 that it would not instal extractor fans as she had submitted a RTB application and it considered the installation of fans to be improvement works.
  12. In referring the complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said the damp and mould issue was ongoing. She said she was unhappy that the landlord had not considered the impact on the household’s health conditions and wanted it to install extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. She also wanted increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that landlords have a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while the evidence is available. Although there is a history of damp and mould at the property, our investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from 12 months before her complaint. However, we may refer to events before this for context.
  2. The resident said her children and husband’s health was impacted and the household experienced significant distress. Unlike a court, we do not determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s action or inaction and a resident’s health. We do not determine liability and award damages in the same way as a court may, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to make a personal injury claim. However, where we have identified a landlord’s failures, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy said it was its responsibility to complete repairs to the roof, walls, doors, door frames, and ceilings. It said that residents must allow access for the landlord to carry out repairs. Its repairs policy outlined the following response times for repairs:
    1. emergency repairs where there is danger of injury within 2 hours.
    2. urgent repairs to protect residents’ health and safety within 1, 3 or 7 days.
    3. routine repairs within 30 days.
  2. Sections 11 and 9.a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA) require landlords to keep the structure and exterior of their properties in good repair and ensure defects (including damp and lack ventilation) do not cause them to be unfit for human habitation.
  3. 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 properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard. The landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  4. Our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould recommends that landlords:
    1. have a risk-based, proactive, zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
    2. consider mitigation where structural intervention is not appropriate and satisfy themselves that they are taking all reasonable steps.
  5. Our Spotlight Report on Repairs highlights that if a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services.
  6. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights the need for landlords to ensure effective record keeping.
  7. The resident reported damp in the bathroom in January 2023, and the landlord completed a mould treatment in March 2023. She reported damp and mould again in March 2023 and May 2023. It is not clear from the landlord’s records which part or parts of the property the damp and mould were in. The landlord said it could not access the property to complete repairs.
  8. The resident reported damp on 1 May 2024. It is unclear how this repair was categorised. The landlord raised a damp inspection and said its contractor completed damp and mould treatment in the bathroom on 7 May 2024. This was within its timescales for urgent or routine repairs, which was appropriate. However, its records do not contain enough detail to confirm the works completed and there is no evidence a damp inspection took place.
  9. The landlord’s contractor said the resident reported damp and mould in the kitchen on 22 July 2024. They said they attended the same day, could not access the property and cancelled the order on 25 July 2024. The landlord has not provided evidence of this repair or that it notified the resident of this appointment. We therefore cannot assess the landlord’s response or why the landlord could not access the property.
  10. The resident reported damp on the kitchen and living room walls on 29 July 2024. Contractors attended on 30 July 2024, which was reasonable. They washed, scraped off paint, and treated mould around the back door and window in the kitchen, and around the bathroom/kitchen door. It was appropriate for the landlord to complete these works to treat the mould. However, it did not address the damp or assess the cause of the damp and mould. This was unreasonable and a failure to take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
  11. Given that the landlord was aware the household had respiratory conditions from January 2023, and the resident reported concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on her partner and children’s health on 7, 15, 19, and 29 August 2024, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have had regard to HHSRS and completed a risk assessment. There is no evidence it did this at any point, which was unreasonable.
  12. The resident reported mould in the property again on 8 August 2024. It is not clear how this repair was categorised, or that the landlord considered the household’s reported vulnerabilities, which was unreasonable. On 16 August 2024 a contractor attended and said that it had already completed the required works on 30 July 2024. The landlords damp and mould records are not detailed enough to be able to confirm whether the repairs raised related to the same issue.
  13. On 15 and 19 August 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to request that it installed extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom to prevent recurring damp and mould. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to decide whether extractor fans were required or respond to the resident’s requests.
  14. The resident reported mould in the property on 28 August 2024. It is not clear how this repair was prioritised. A contractor attended on 29 August 2024 and washed and treated mould around the kitchen door which was reasonable. It said it would return to complete further works once damp on the living room wall had dried out. It did not attempt another visit for 2 months, which was an unreasonable delay given that there was unresolved damp.
  15. When the landlord issued its stage 1 response, it had not established the cause of the damp and mould or responded to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her family’s health. It was therefore unreasonable for it to conclude that there were no failures of service and offer no remedy. Its advice for the resident to request permission to install extractor fans was unreasonable. This is because, in doing so, it suggested they were improvement works. This was unreasonable given that it had not established whether extractor fans were required to prevent damp and mould recurring, or the impact of the damp and mould on the household’s health.
  16. It was appropriate for the landlord to request that an urgent inspection was carried out to address concerns about damp and mould and ask if extractor fans were required on 30 August 2024. On 3 September 2024, it said internally that it would only consider fitting extractor fans if there were repeated mould issues and there was no mould present. This position was unreasonable as it failed to address the issue of unresolved damp at the property. Further, having taken this position, the landlord delayed in satisfying itself there were no repeated mould issues, which was unreasonable. Its approach failed to follow recommendations in our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould to take a zero-tolerance approach to, or all reasonable steps to mitigate, damp and mould.
  17. The landlord took no action until 22 October 2024 when it asked its contractor to confirm if the damp and mould issues were recurring. This was an unreasonable delay. It said its contractors attended the property on 29 October 2024, could not access the property and cancelled the order. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it notified the resident of this appointment. We therefore cannot assess the reason it could not access the property.
  18. When the resident submitted a RTB application on 1 November 2024, the RTB notice said that it would not normally complete major repairs, renewals and improvements while an application was processed. The landlord’s RTB and repairs policies confirmed that from the date of the RTB application, it would not carry out repairs, replacement, or improvement works that could affect the property valuation. Its RTB policy said it would only complete emergency works. However, the landlord’s repairs policy said it would still complete responsive repairs until purchase. Further, its responsibilities to repair the structure and exterior of the property and ensure it was fit for habitation under LTA did not end when the resident submitted a RTB application.
  19. The resident chased the landlord about her complaint 4 times in November 2024. It is unreasonable that it did not attempt to arrange any follow up inspections or assess whether it was responsible for any works required after 29 October 2024, given the unresolved damp in the living room, and the reported impact on the household’s health. The evidence suggests the landlord’s lack of oversight of, and lack of communication with its contractors contributed to this.
  20. The landlord said it attempted to access the property on 29 November 2024. However, it is unclear from its records what this visit was for, and there is no evidence it notified the resident of this appointment. The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection on 17 January 2025. It is not clear how the repair was categorised, or that the landlord considered the household’s reported vulnerabilities, which was unreasonable. The landlord said it asked its contractors to decide if extractor fans were necessary, which was appropriate. Given the repeated reports of damp and mould, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to instruct a damp and mould expert to attempt to identify the cause of the damp and mould and measures to prevent their return.
  21. On 29 January 2025 contractors noted black mould on the bathroom ceiling, window, and walls. They postponed works due to unrelated repairs. On 4 February 2025, contractors washed, treated and painted the areas affected by mould, which was appropriate. They confirmed the property would benefit from a fan being installed. There is no evidence the landlord addressed the damp in the living room or attempted to identify the cause of the damp and mould, which was unreasonable. Following the contractor’s inspection, the landlord did not decide whether it was necessary to instal a fan to prevent damp and mould returning or communicate this to the resident. This was unreasonable. The evidence suggests a lack of communication between the landlord and its contractors contributed to this.
  22. On 27 February 2025 the landlord’s complaints team told the resident that installing an extractor fan was essential to prevent future problems, but did not confirm whether it was going to instal one, which was unreasonable.
  23. In the landlord’s stage 2 response:
    1. it was unreasonable for it to say it would only instal fans if there were repeated mould issues but not say whether its investigations had assessed this. This is because the evidence suggested there may be repeated mould issues, and it had more than 6 months to assess this.
    2. it was inappropriate for it to say it had not accepted the recommendation to instal a fan because it could not access the property. This is because there is no evidence it notified the resident of the visit on 29 October 2024, and it knew there was unresolved damp but had not tried to arrange another visit.
    3. saying it would arrange a further visit to decide if extractor fans were required would have likely been confusing for the resident. This is because it said this was the purpose of its visit on 29 January 2025 and it had confirmed extractor fans would be beneficial on multiple occasions.
    4. it was appropriate for it to acknowledge some communication failures with its contractors and delays in addressing the issue, and to attempt to put things right by offering some redress. It was unclear what proportion of the £310 compensation was for the substantive complaint.
    5. it did not address all its failures, respond to the reported impact of the damp and mould on the household’s health, or set out any learning from the substantive complaint, which was unreasonable.
  24. Following its stage 2 response, the landlord did not seek expert evidence to understand what was causing the reported damp and mould or decide whether it had a responsibility to instal extractor fans. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles of learn from outcomes and put things right.
  25. The resident said the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould caused her distress and panic and impacted her sleep. She said she was very worried about the impact on her family’s health and did not feel the landlord was listening to her. She said her child missed school due to the deterioration in their respiratory condition. She said her husband had to sleep in the living room where there was ongoing damp and mould and said his health was worsening.
  26. In summary, despite responding in a timely manner to complete mould treatments at the property on 30 July and 30 August 2024, the landlord:
    1. did not instruct an expert to identify the cause of the damp and mould or works required to remedy this, once it was aware of a repeated issue.
    2. did not address the damp and mould in the living room which the resident reported on 22 and 29 July 2024 and 7 August 2024.
    3. did not consider the reported impact on the household’s health when prioritising repairs, have regard to HHSRS or complete a risk assessment.
    4. had poor communication with and oversight of its contractors.
    5. failed to provide detailed damp and mould records, or evidence it notified the resident of appointments, which has impacted our assessment.
    6. did not arrange follow up appointments when it was unable to access the property, despite knowledge of ongoing damp.
    7. unreasonably delayed in confirming its position and failed to provide a clear position on the resident’s requests for extractor fans.
    8. failed to consider whether the property was fit for habitation or if it had a responsibility to instal extractor fans as a responsive repair under LTA.
  27. Due to the number of failures of service identified, the reported impact on the resident, and the length of time the issue was ongoing, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £750 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, inclusive of the £310 it offered at stage 2. We have also ordered the landlord to set out its learning from the failures identified in this report.
  28. The resident said the landlord completed a damp and mould survey in June 2025. It has not provided evidence of this but confirmed it attended the property due to mould and there were water marks in the living room in July 2025. We have therefore ordered the landlord to complete a damp and mould survey to assess the cause of the damp and mould and whether any works including the installation of extractor fans are required, if it has not already done so. We have ordered it to complete any required works identified. We have also ordered the landlord to update its records with the household’s vulnerabilities and complete a risk assessment considering the impact of the property condition on the household’s health.

Complaint handling

  1. In line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord’s complaints policy said it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It said it would respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days of escalation. The Code says that landlords should acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 14 August 2024, within its complaints policy timescales. It issued a response on 29 August 2024, 11 working days after its acknowledgment email, which was just outside the Code and its complaints policy timescales.
  3. After the resident requested to escalate her complaint on 29 August 2024, she contacted the landlord 5 times in October 2024 as she had not received an update on her complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint at stage 2 until 22 October 2024. This was 38 working days after she escalated it and was not in line with the Code. It said it would issue a response within 20 working days or contact her to explain why it was taking longer.
  4. The resident requested an update on her complaint 4 times between 12 and 21 November 2024. The landlord did not respond or explain why its complaint response was taking longer once 20 working days had passed. This was unreasonable. The resident contacted us and on 24 March 2025 we contacted the landlord to ask it to issue a stage 2 complaint response. On 27 March 2025, it apologised to her for the time taken to respond to her complaint. It issued a stage 2 response 149 working days after her escalation request. This was an unreasonable delay and was not in line with its complaints policy.
  5. The Code says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her family’s health, which was not in line with the Code.
  6. The landlord acknowledged its delay in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 28 March 2025, which was appropriate. It also set out learning and attempted to put things right by offering redress for its complaint handling. Although it was not clear what proportion of the compensation it offered was for its complaint handling failures, its attempt to put things right was in line with our dispute resolution principles of learn from outcomes and put things right. However, the landlord did not acknowledge its failure to respond to the resident’s concerns about the household’s health, or her time and trouble in involving the Ombudsman at stage 2.
  7. Due to the significant delay in its stage 2 response, the time and trouble spent and the need to involve this Service, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. The landlord may deduct the compensation offered in its stage 2 response from the total compensation if this has already been paid.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. provide a written apology for the failures identified in this investigation.
    2. write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
    3. pay the resident a total of £1,000 compensation, made up of:
      1. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
      2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
      3. the landlord may deduct the £310 it previously offered if it can provide evidence it has already paid this.
    4. update its records with the household’s vulnerabilities.
    5. complete and send the resident a written risk assessment that:
      1. establishes the risks to the household, considering the condition of the property and any relevant reported vulnerabilities of the household.
      2. outlines the actions it is taking to mitigate or reduce any risks.
    6. if it has not already done so, instruct a suitably qualified damp and mould specialist to complete a damp and mould survey of the property and assess:
      1. the cause of any damp and mould.
      2. whether any works are required to resolve the damp and mould.
      3. whether the installation of extractor fans in the kitchen and/ or bathroom are required to stop damp and mould from returning.
    7. provide a copy of the damp and mould survey to the resident and this Service.
    8. provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.
  2. Within 56 days of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. complete any required works identified by the damp and mould survey.
    2. provide evidence of compliance with this order.