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

Bolton at Home Limited (202433682)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433682

Bolton at Home Limited

31 July 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports of various repairs, including leaks.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with landlord A which commenced in June 2018. The property is a 2 storey, mid-terraced, 3-bedroom house with a single-storey addition, and with pitched roofs. Landlord A had acquired the property from a third party. On 1 April 2024, landlord A merged with landlord B (the landlord) who retained landlord A’s repairs contractor. We shall simply refer to “the landlord” unless it is necessary for clarity to distinguish between landlord A and landlord B. The resident has 4 children including one with an Education, Health, and Care Plan (ECHP) due to his condition, autism.
  2. The resident, on 15 July 2024, reported a fallen kitchen cupboard door and other outstanding repairs. The landlord decided its external, independent surveying contractor should inspect to report on all works that it needed to complete. The landlord on 21 August 2024 notified the resident of the surveying contractor’s report. As the resident requested further works, the landlord conducted another inspection on 24 September 2024.
  3. On 24 October 2024, the resident raised a complaint. She noted the landlord had not completed the works identified on 24 September 2024. She also raised concerns about delays in repairing a cracked bathroom sink, the toilet needing re-sealing, and a ceiling leaking from the bathroom. She added that, generally, there had been delays to repairs she originally raised on 12 May 2022, with there being 5 surveys and 38 operatives visiting.
  4. On 6 December 2024, the landlord sent the stage 1 response:
    1. It advised that its contractor would complete the works raised on 24 September 2024 as follows:
      1. Roofing works – 9 December 2024 AM (slipped tile at front).
      2. Joinery works – 10 December 2024 AM.
      3. Plumbing works – 10 December 2024 AM.
      4. Plastering works – 13 December 2024 AM.
      5. Electrical works – 13 December 2024 AM.
    2. It relayed the repairs contractor had explained historic delays under landlord A were due to changeover of staff during its contract there.
    3. It offered compensation of £250 comprised of:
      1. £100 for the failure by the contractor to deliver the repair work within the Repairs Policy.
      2. £100 for the resident having to contact landlord A then itself to chase the repair work.
      3. £50 for the delay in the response to the resident as detailed in its Customer Feedback Policy
  5. On 9 December 2024, the resident escalated her complaint:
    1. She stated there had been a delay of more than 2 years for the landlord to complete works. The impact was elevated as she had 4 children, one with additional needs. The landlord did not consider these historic delays.
    2. She noted that the landlord had raised 58 jobs. She therefore thought it offered inadequate compensation.
    3. She said she wanted the landlord to place her in temporary accommodation during the works.
  6. On 13 January 2025, the landlord sent the stage 2 response. It listed job orders from landlord A and its database since May 2022. It acknowledged there were delays. It added its failure to keep clear and concise historical repair records would have more of an impact on the resident due to her son’s complex needs. The landlord also stated the following:
    1. After the stage 1 response, the resident had asked for the works not to be completed apart from roof tile repair. It completed this repair on 9 December 2024.
    2. It repaired the bathroom door handle and a thermostatic radiator valve (TRV) in the large bedroom on 20 December 2024 after the resident provided access.
    3. The contractor was unable to speak to the resident on 7 and 8 January 2025 to arrange appointments.
    4. It would be meeting on 14 January 2025 to decide the full scope of works and the resident’s request for temporary accommodation.
    5. It was not liable for the resident’s son injuring his finger on the bathroom sink as the resident had not reported this repair previously. The resident had not allowed access for repairs and there was no evidence how the crack occurred.
    6. It would offer a further £100 compensation for the failure to book repairs after the stage 1 response.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 April 2025. She stated:
    1. The landlord had completed some repairs, but most were poorly done and there needed to be further works. For example, it had attended 21 times to carry out repairs to her kitchen cabinets.
    2. The landlord had set no date for temporary accommodation.
    3. Mould and damp in bedroom was the most serious issue.
    4. The roof was still leaking as a repair the previous year was not successful.
  8. The resident obtained a transfer through the local authority’s allocation system. She commenced a new tenancy with a different landlord on 11 May 2025. The landlord has advised it is now considering whether to dispose of the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has provided text messages for repairs that date back to 2021. However, the first formal complaint that completed the landlord’s complaints procedure was not made until 24 October 2024. It is important that residents bring complaints to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate them. However, we note that the resident in her complaint mentioned repairs raised on 12 May 2022, which the landlord considered also. Therefore, we have considered event from this date.

Repairs, including damp and mould

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory obligation to “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the Premises including:
    1. 2.3.1 drains, gutters and external pipes;
    2. 2.3.2 the roof;
    3. 2.3.3 outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, … and window frames including necessary external painting and decorating;
    4. 2.3.4 internal walls, floors and ceilings, …;
    5. 2.3.5 chimneys, chimney stacks and flues …;
    6. 2.3.7 plasterwork;”
  2. The tenancy agreement also confirms the landlord’s statutory obligation to “keep in repair and proper order any installations provided … for space heating, water heating and sanitation…
    1. Basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes.”
  3. On 12 May 2022, the resident reported a crack to a kitchen wall, the bottom hinge to kitchen cabinet door had come off, and a crack in the bathroom sink which had twice cut her daughter’s finger. She said there had previously been 3 repairs to the kitchen cabinet door and that previous repairs to the sink by filling in the crack had not been effective. The landlord advised it would install a standard wash basin if it could not find a like-for-like replacement. At the time, landlord’s A Repairs Procedure stated it should complete routine repairs in 10 working days. Although the repair records indicate that works were completed within this timeframe, the landlord recalled the contractor on 27 May 2022 due to the poor quality of works.
  4. The landlord’s records also show that between July 2022 and August 2022, it raised a repair to roof slates. It also raised orders to replaster and redecorate the kitchen ceiling and replace a bath panel. The records show the latter repairs arose from a leak from the bathroom into the ceiling below, which also damaged the bath panel. The landlord also raised another kitchen cabinet door repair. It is not clear that the landlord completed the repairs within the timeframe for routine repairs as it “Auto Closed” the jobs on 20 April 2023.
  5. In a response to an earlier complaint sent on 3 October 2022 about 10 pending jobs, the landlord accepted there were outstanding repairs. It further accepted it had not kept a consistent record of what had been completed and what was outstanding. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service. This enables a landlord to provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, and also assists it in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. Furthermore, reliable records enable the landlord to monitor and manage outstanding repairs, and provide accurate information to residents. Together with the failings in its handling of repairs, there were failings in the landlord’s record keeping. This was inappropriate.
  6. Following the complaint of 3 October 2022, the landlord inspected on 20 October 2022 and re-raised the works identified earlier that year. It also noted there had been “numerous” leaks. It added plastering works to the landing and bathroom as well as the kitchen. It was then to redecorate the kitchen ceiling. However, as stated, it is not evident that the landlord satisfactorily completed the repairs as it “Auto Closed” the job orders on 20 April 2023.
  7. The landlord’s records show that over the next few months in 2023, the landlord raised multiple jobs but did not complete works. It raised further plastering works in the living room and bedroom, and a mould wash to the living room ceiling. It also noted that the resident reported a cupboard attached to the toilet had a sharp object exposed. The records note the resident wanted the landlord to place her in temporary accommodation in the local area. As the landlord did not facilitate this, it could not agree access to the property. There are no contemporaneous records to confirm what attempts the landlord made to gain access or that they were reasonable.
  8. It was particularly unreasonable the landlord did not make greater efforts to complete the mould wash. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021), highlights the general need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, and to intervene accordingly.
  9. After a further inspection on 9 November 2023, the landlord noted there were cracks throughout the property. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that a car crashing into her property in September 2023 had exacerbated the cracks. The landlord noted the resident said every time she used the shower, the bath leaked into the kitchen down to her cabinets and worktops through a ceiling crack. The landlord also noted another leak that caused a damp patch in a bedroom ceiling. The resident advised when it rained, rainwater dripped on her bed and the damp patch had deteriorated. The landlord agreed to raise an emergency repair for this leak. It also arranged another kitchen cabinet repair.
  10. With regards to the bedroom leak, the landlord attended on 10 and 17 November 2023. It repaired a broken roof slate, refixed others, and cleaned the gutter. This was a prompt response, initially in line with its emergency repair timeframe. However, on 12 December 2023, the landlord raised another emergency roof leak. This indicates it had not fully traced the leak and/or the works completed were insufficient and/or not to the required standard. In fact, the resident advised that previous repairs with pins were not successful, consequently slates were falling off the roof. The landlord agreed to replace the resident’s mattress which had been damaged by the leak and the resident has provided evidence to us that she purchased a new mattress on 15 December 2023. The landlord advised it would make good the bedroom ceiling after stopping the roof leak.
  11. The landlord advised it would also replace the bathroom sink and toilet as it could not repair cosmetic damage due to the design. It would complete the works in January 2024 after checking the measurements. It would also instruct a structural engineer then decide how best to deal with the cracks. Given the landlord’s obligations to keep the structure and fabric of the building in good repair, it was appropriate that the landlord commissioned a structural surveyor. When instructing a structural surveyor, it stated it suspected the removal of an internal wall may be causing cracks and “a few” recent roof leaks.
  12. The structural surveyor reported cracking in internal walls reflected excessive deflection of the kitchen / dining room beam, most likely combined with an inadequate support. The landlord’s records indicate it made good cracks in the living room on 6 February 2024. However, the records do not explain why it did not repair other cracks. Also, there is no evidence that it managed the resident’s expectations on the outcome of the structural survey. This was unreasonable given the resident’s concerns about the cracks. In fact, on 8 February 2024, the resident asked for a copy of the report and noted incomplete repairs to the cracks and bedroom ceiling.
  13. The landlord’s records show that it completed other repairs on 6 February 2024. In particular, it renewed a hinge to a kitchen cabinet and completed a mould wash to the living room ceiling. However, it had logged these works the previous year, therefore it delayed in completing them. Moreover, there were outstanding works. This included the replacement toilet, which the resident mentioned on 8 February 2024.
  14. After the resident, on 15 July 2024, reported a fallen kitchen cabinet door and other outstanding repairs, the landlord inspected. It decided its external surveying contractor should inspect to report on all works that it needed to complete. This was prudent given the extent of works that had been identified and delays in completing repairs before. Moreover, given the delays in attending to or carrying out effective repairs, it was reasonable that the landlord explored another way to agree a comprehensive list of works.
  15. On 21 August 2024, following the surveying contractor’s report, the landlord advised the resident it would be completing the following repairs:
    1. Ease and adjust the kitchen unit doors and replace on 1 hinge.
    2. Rake out defective seal the bath and reseal.
    3. Replace the plasterboard to the bedroom ceiling in the area affected by mould.
    4. Overhaul the radiator to the bedroom and rehang.
    5. Install extractor fans in the kitchen and the bathroom.
    6. Install hardwired smoke detectors, carbon monoxide, and heat alarms.
  16. An internal email sent on 29 August 2024 noted there were 2 separate leaks which led to the property to be identified as a “Cat 2”. The leaks were from the bathroom to the kitchen and from the roof into the back bedroom causing mould on the ceiling. This confirms the landlord was aware the leaks presented significant concerns that could adversely affect the health and safety of the resident and her family.
  17. On 4 September 2024, the landlord with a commissioned chartered building surveyor inspected the structural issues at the property. The chartered surveyor noted cracks in some walls and ceilings, rising and penetrating damp in the back addition, and inadequate ventilation. Their recommendations included:
    1. Re-slate the main roof with installing a roof membrane and replacing the roof covering on the back addition with slates.
    2. Structural works to prevent cracking to partition walls on the first floor, increasing improving the load-bearing capacity.
    3. Installing extraction units in the kitchen and bathroom.
  18. The resident requested further works to that identified by the independent surveyor. She stressed there was a leak into the bedroom which had damaged her carpet and mattress. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expert opinion of approved contractors, such as the independent surveyor. Nonetheless, it was important that it fully agree all works with the resident, in particular because of previous delays and access issues.
  19. Consequently, the landlord carried out an inspection on 24 September 2024. After inspecting, it sent the resident the following job list:
    1. “Refix a roof slate.
    2. Overhaul kitchen cupboard door hinges with repair plates.
    3. Rehang radiator in the small front bedroom.
    4. Repair bathroom door handle.
    5. Replace the thermostatic radiator valve in large front bedroom.
    6. Ease and adjust all upstairs internal doors.
    7. Renew ceiling in the back bedroom and complete with decoration (electrician to disconnect lights).
    8. Install extractors in the kitchen and bathroom.
    9. Install hard wired CO and heat detectors in the kitchen.
    10. Reseal bath panel and floor in the bathroom.
    11. Renew the night latch to the patio doors.”

It stated, regarding structural issues, a tiler would check if they could match the bathroom tiles and look at the cracked bathroom sink. It also said it was consulting with an independent surveyor about structural issues. It would then identify works, which would include the bathroom sink.

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy regarding Responsive Repairs states “for properties that used to be owned by [landlord A], these repairs will be responded to within 10 calendar days.” The policy was introduced after the merger and this time frame is a continuing commitment. There is no evidence the landlord took steps to complete the works identified on 24 September 2024 within this timeframe or prior to responding to the resident’s complaint. The delay in the complaint response compounded the delay. Indeed, the resident advised it should not agree appointments for the works before the stage 1 response. Ultimately, the appointments the landlord made for the works between 9-13 December 2024, were 11 weeks after its inspection.
  2. Following the stage 1 response, the landlord completed the roof slate repair on 9 December 2024. However, it did not complete the other works on the scheduled dates in December 2024. In fact, the resident, as stated in her stage 2 complaint, wanted the landlord to place her in temporary accommodation for the works. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her request or otherwise intervened to ensure the works could proceed.
  3. The landlord’s Decant Policy states that “a judgement should be made by the surveyor as to whether anyone in the property will have their health affected by the works”. The policy further states the landlord should consider the following options:
    1. “Affected customer moves out during day of works.
    2. Contractor controls the element(s) of work which affect health.
    3. Contractor uses different material(s) to alleviate health issues.
    4. Temporary welfare made available/set up for respite during days of works.
    5. Affected customer (and any dependants) moves in with friend/relative during time of whole works.”

There is no evidence that the landlord considered a decant in line with the steps outlined its policy. It therefore missed an opportunity to reduce further delay in completion of works. This was particularly unreasonable as there had previously been access difficulties.

  1. On 10 January 2025, the landlord’s contractor advised only the plastering and electrical works were outstanding. They confirmed they had completed plumbing and joinery works that day. They said they had specifically repaired kitchen cabinet door hinges, repaired the bathroom door handle, adjusted all upstairs doors, renewed the latch to patio door, fitted the valve for radiator in front bedroom, unblocked the bath waste, and fitted a new waste overflow and trap.
  2. The landlord’s records indicate that in December 2024, the landlord considered what further action to take to resolve outstanding repairs. It decided to replace the bathroom and replace the bathroom sink sooner as a temporary measure. It also decided to seek permission from a neighbour to replace the roof and install a gutter tray. It therefore considered further steps to resolve the leaks in the property as well as the resident’s reports of other repairs within the bathroom. Nonetheless, there had been leaks since 2022 which had caused mould to form around the property. The roof leak as particularly serious as it affected the resident’s bedroom where she slept. Given the length of time these issues had been unresolved and the number of repeat visits without stopping the leaks, it was unreasonable that it did not consider these options sooner.
  3. The landlord on 8 January 2025 instructed a mould contractor to conduct a survey for an upgrade of kitchen and bathroom fans. However, the landlord had agreed to install the fans after the independent surveyor inspection, over 4 months earlier, in August 2024. It was also aware that mould had formed on ceilings. As such, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not instruct the mould contractor in a timelier manner. In fact, in its response to our Spotlight Report on damp and mould and Repairs Policy, it committed to clean mould in Cat 2 cases within 21 days. It did not adhere to this timeframe.
  4. The resident went on to report ongoing leaks. Between 10 and 13 January 2025, she noted the contractor had attended to complete a temporary repair to a roof leak. She said the contractor noted the roof had no felt therefore any slight break of the slate would allow ingress. She reiterated the roof leak through the ceiling into her bedroom had “destroyed” her mattress again and the carpet too. resident also highlighted the leak from the bath had damaged the kitchen floor.
  5. After the stage 2 response the landlord replaced the bathroom sink. However, it still could not agree a temporary move. At the time the resident moved, it had not gained access for electrical works, or the mould treatment and fan installation. It cancelled the roof works when the resident moved out.
  6. In summary, the landlord failed to complete various works to the resident’s property. Notably, it did not resolve two separate leaks, one from the roof into the bedroom and another from the bathroom into the downstairs. The delays were particularly unreasonable given the damp and mould that resulted together with the effect on the resident’s use of her rooms. The landlord did not repair all the cracks in the property. It failed to complete effective repairs to kitchen units and the bathroom sink which caused repeat visits. It also did not seek to clean the mould or install extractor fans in a prompt manner. While it did complete some plumbing and joinery works identified on 24 September 2024, there still were delays.
  7. While there were access difficulties, the landlord did not make reasonable attempts to facilitate the resident’s request for temporary accommodation or otherwise gain access for works. Also, as the landlord stated, there were also failings in its record keeping that prevented it from monitoring some repairs accurately. As also accepted by the landlord, the impact on the resident was elevated as she had 4 children, including a son with additional and complex needs. The landlord did not put into place mitigation effort such as providing dehumidifiers to mitigate the damp. The resident and her wider household were subject to a considerable degree of disrepair and increasing level of mould growth for a period from at least 2023. The resident also reported damage to her possessions, in particular her carpet and to two mattresses. This cannot but have resulted in significant distress , inconvenience and time and trouble. Given the extent and duration of the failures, together with the elevated impact on the resident and her family, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration by the landlord.
  8. At the time the resident raised her complaint, her rent was £172.74. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pays compensation of 20% of her rent for the period of her complaint, 12 May 2022 to 13 January 2025, which is 139 weeks. The compensation equates to 20/100 x 139 x £172.74 which totals £4,802.17. The compensation reflects her and her family’s loss of enjoyment and general distress and inconvenience from the delay to repairs in her property. The landlord should also pay the £50 offered for the delay in the stage 1 response. This is because its complaints procedure confirms it should have responded within 10 working days or provided a revised timescale. The landlord may deduct any payment already made to the resident in respect of this complaint.
  9. As the resident has moved out of the property, we have not made any orders to complete repairs. However, we recommend that if the landlord decides to relet the property, it produces a schedule of works, including any necessary structural repairs, which should ensure the property meets its lettable standard.
  10. In this case, as acknowledged by the landlord, there was missing information following the merger between landlord A and landlord B. When investigating a previous complaint about the landlord, reference 202426183, we also noted missing information on repairs and surveys after the merger. We noted in this investigation that our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) recommends that landlords “proactively investigate incoming datasets during mergers as part of due diligence”. This is to “identify gaps in the knowledge of incoming stock and residents, and work to fill those gaps”. We recommended the landlord carry out due diligence of its information systems considering the recommendations of the Spotlight Report. We further recommend that the landlord consider whether there are any additional issues and learning from this case that can inform a review of its information systems.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs, including leaks.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to:
    1. Arrange for a senior member of staff at Director level or above to send an apology to the resident. The landlord should follow the Ombudsman’s Apologies Guidance.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £4,852.17 comprising:
      1. £4,802.17 to reflect the resident and her family’s loss of enjoyment of the property and general distress and inconvenience from the delay to repairs in her property.
      2. £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 1.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 8 weeks, to undertake a strategic review of this case. This should be conducted by a senior officer from outside of the services complained about.  At a minimum, it should consider the below list of failings and identify what improvements might be made and brought into its day to day operations:
    1. the delays in completing works and inspections, and how it could have avoided or mitigated them.
    2. whether it could have improved its record-keeping.
    3. whether it could have better updated and communicated with the resident.
    4. how it could have better managed and monitored the performance contractors through to effective completion of works within the timeframe of its Repairs Policy.
    5. whether there are additional issues and learning from this case that can inform and augment any future strategic review of the repairs service.
    6. The review of the case must be completed within 8 weeks of the date of this report and shared with this Service and its Governance Board

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. considers whether there are any additional issues and learning from this case that can inform due diligence of its information systems. It can consider the recommendations of the Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management, if it has not already completed this exercise.
    2. if it decides to relet the property, produces a schedule of works, including any necessary structural repairs, that should ensure the property is structurally sound and meets its lettable standard.