From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Birmingham City Council (202431353)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431353

Birmingham City Council

27 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 a leak, damp, and mould in the property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has held a secure tenancy with the landlord since 2015. She lives in a bungalow with her 3 children, all of whom are considered vulnerable due to age, disabilities, and health conditions. The resident also has a heart condition.
  2. On 16 October 2023, the resident told the landlord that a leak was coming from the kitchen sink and that damp and mould were present in her home. On 18 October 2023, the landlord sent a plumber, who confirmed the kitchen tap was leaking and dripping into the kitchen cupboards. The plumber applied sealant tape to resolve the leak.
  3. In April 2024, the resident told the landlord that a leak was coming from the toilet. The landlord sent a plumber the same day, who carried out a repair to resolve the issue. On 1 August 2024, the resident reported another leak in the property. The landlord sent a plumber the following day, who found water coming from under the flooring. The plumber sealed a hole in the corner of the flooring in the wet room.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 7 August 2024. She said she had been reporting a leak in her home since 2023. She believed that water was coming from a gap in the shower wall and said a plumber told her she would need to pull up her flooring as water had spread throughout the property. She said the leak had damaged floors in every room and caused mould to develop on items such as shoes, a computer, and a bed. She said damp had cracked the kitchen floor tiles and rising damp was present on the walls.
  5. The resident explained that she had installed new flooring the previous year and could not afford to replace it again. She also said she believed the property was unsafe for her children because it was a breeding ground for bacteria. She highlighted that her children had additional needs, including asthma, and that she had a 1-year-old baby. The resident asked the landlord to move her to another property.
  6. On 22 August 2024, the landlord arranged an inspection of the resident’s home. It found damp in the hallway flooring, which had spread to the children’s bedroom. It also found that the laminate flooring in the main bedroom had water seeping through the joints. Mould was present in the hallway cupboard, and the guttering was blocked, potentially allowing water to enter the walls.
  7. On 28 August 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It summarised the actions it had taken since her first report in 2023 and said that it had raised a repair to unblock the guttering. It also said that it had requested a damp and mould survey and invited the resident to submit a claim for damage to her personal belongings. On 2 September 2024, the landlord offered the resident £175 compensation for the impact of the unresolved leak on the household.
  8. On 3 September 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She rejected the compensation offer, saying it did not proportionately reflect the damage to her belongings, or the emotional stress caused. She said there had been no urgency from the landlord to resolve the reported issues and that no one had attended to check the guttering. She said she had been given multiple explanations for the source of the leak, which remained unresolved.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 September 2024. It said it had made a referral for a drain survey to be carried out by an external company, which would contact the resident to arrange an appointment. It said it could take no further action until the survey was completed. The landlord also said that its records showed it had delivered a dehumidifier to the resident.
  10. On 15 November 2024, the resident brought her complaint to this service. She said the source of the leak remained unresolved and all floors in the property were wet. She said the landlord did not give her a dehumidifier and that it had not considered her request for temporary accommodation. She also said that she remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Legal policy and framework

  1. The resident’s occupancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the property and the outside of the building. This includes the roof, drains, gutters, and pipes.
  2. The resident’s tenancy conditions state that the landlord classifies repairs into the following categories:
    1. Emergency – where there is an immediate threat to safety or the property. These are responded to within 2 hours
    2. Urgent – repairs such as leaks. These are responded to within 1, 3, and 7 working days, depending on the type of repair
    3. Non-urgent – all other repairs, responded to within 30 days
  3. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 workings days and respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould in the property

Leak

  1. The landlord’s records show that in October 2023 it treated the resident’s report of a leak as an urgent repair and attended within 2 days. This was appropriate as, based on the information recorded, the issue did not meet the threshold for an emergency response but still required prompt action. This showed the landlord applied its repairs policy correctly and responded without delay.
  2. In response to the report, a plumber applied sealant to what was believed at the time to be the source of the leak. There were no further reports of a leak from the resident until April 2024, around 6 months later. This suggests the repair was at least temporarily effective in resolving the reported issue. Overall, the landlord took reasonable action in how it handled the resident’s initial report of a leak.
  3. In April 2024, the resident reported a leak coming from the toilet. The landlord’s records show that it marked the repair as resolved on the same day but did not record the source of the leak or the action taken to fix it. This lack of detail limits our ability to assess how the landlord handled the matter and is likely to have reduced its ability to take a joined-up approach. The resident had reported a leak a few months earlier and again 4 months later in August 2024. Better records could have helped to establish whether these issues were linked, supported more coordinated repairs, and provided a clearer picture of the property’s repair history.
  4. On 1 August 2024, the resident reported water coming from under the flooring in the wet room. The landlord’s records show a plumber sealed a hole in the floor, but there is no evidence that it assessed the source of the leak. Given the nature of the report (water coming from under the floor) and the history of previous leaks, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider further investigation at this stage, rather than relying solely on another temporary repair. No further action took place after that appointment until the resident reported another leak 3 weeks later, on 22 August 2024, at which stage the landlord arranged for an inspection of the property.
  5. The Ombudsman’s Repairing Trust spotlight report, published in May 2025, highlights that landlords should interrogate repeat reports and move away from a reactive approach, as this can leave underlying causes unresolved. In this case, the lack of an earlier and thorough assessment meant the landlord missed an opportunity to identify and address the root cause of the leak before further reports arose. This prolonged the resident’s inconvenience and likely reduced her confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve the matter.
  6. The inspection on 22 August 2024 identified blocked guttering as a possible source of water entering the property. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that it had booked an appointment to clear the guttering. However, its later records for that appointment only noted that no leaks were found from the guttering, without explaining whether the clearance took place or why its earlier assessment had changed. In contrast, the resident’s stage 2 complaint said nobody attended to carry out the work at all. Because of the poor detail in the landlord’s records, we cannot determine whether this potential contributing factor was addressed.
  7. The Ombudsman’s Repairing Trust spotlight report, highlights that transparent and accurate updates are essential to maintain trust, which gives residents confidence that their concerns have been properly addressed. Had the landlord confirmed the outcome of the guttering appointment and set out any next steps, it would likely have reassured the resident that this line of enquiry had been considered and helped maintain confidence in its handling of the repairs. It would have also provided our service with clear evidence of the actions taken, enabling a more definitive assessment of whether the landlord’s investigation into the source of the leak was thorough.
  8. The landlord also did not address the resident’s report that her kitchen tiles had cracked because of the unresolved leak. There is no evidence that it inspected the damage or considered whether repairs or replacements were needed.
  9. In a recent update to us, the landlord said it had noted during its August 2024 inspection that the kitchen tiles were cracked but did not consider this to be caused by the leak. This assessment appears to have been based solely on the opinion of an operative and there is no record of any reasoning or further investigation to support it. As the source of the leak had not been identified at that stage, the landlord could not be certain the damage was unrelated. While a landlord is entitled to rely on the judgement of its staff, in this case a more thorough investigation would have been reasonable.
  10. In addition, by not explaining its position to the resident at the time, the landlord also denied the resident the opportunity to review and challenge that conclusion. This lack of communication left the resident without clarity about whether her concerns were being taken seriously, which was likely to reduce her confidence that the landlord had properly investigated the issue.
  11. While the landlord has since told us the resident has put down new flooring in the kitchen, meaning it can no longer investigate the damage further. This does not change the service failing in how the landlord handled the matter at the time.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said it had provided the resident with a dehumidifier a few weeks earlier. Its records contain a photograph of a dehumidifier in a property, but the resident disputed receiving this and asked the landlord to provide proof. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated or checked this challenge. This means the landlord cannot be certain it took all reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the leak while it remained unresolved.
  13. When we spoke to the resident in August 2025, she told us her property was still damp and that the landlord had taken no further action since the conclusion of the complaints process. There is also no evidence it investigated further to find the source of the leak. Without this, we cannot reasonably conclude that the issue has been resolved. This means the resident has lived with an unresolved leak for at least a year. This is unacceptable and falls short of the landlord’s repair obligations to keep the property in repair.
  14. In a recent update to us, the landlord said that it inspected the resident’s property on 15 August 2025. It told us it saw no evidence of water coming through the floor. But it noted the weather bar at the rear door was missing, which could allow water to enter the property. It said it has raised a job to replace this.
  15. While this may address 1 potential source of water entering the resident’s property, this action comes almost a year after the complaint concluded. It does not change the failings identified in this section of the report, as the landlord had not established the source of the leak or taken effective actions during the period under investigation.

Damp and mould

  1. Around the time of the initial leak report in October 2023, the resident also reported damp and mould in the property. However, the landlord’s response to the report is unclear. Its records show that 2 weeks after the resident had raised the issue it marked the repair as complete. But there is no evidence of what assessment was made at the time or what actions were taken to address it. This matters because, without a clear record, the landlord cannot demonstrate that it identified the cause of the damp and mould or took steps to prevent it from recurring, making it unclear whether the issue was fully resolved.
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, recommends that landlords keep accurate records to support a risk-based approach to damp and mould. In the landlord’s self-assessment against these recommendations, it told us it collected and analysed damp and mould data, combined it with inspection findings, and used this to target problems before they arose. The absence of records in this case is inconsistent with that stated approach and means the landlord cannot evidence that it acted in line with its own commitments.
  3. During the inspection on 22 August 2024, the landlord’s notes confirmed the recurrence of damp and mould in the resident’s home. The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy in place at the time, so there were no set timescales for responding to such reports. However, in its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, the landlord told us it dealt with cases ‘swiftly.’ Given the confirmed presence of damp and mould, the vulnerabilities in the household, and the potential risks to the resident’s children, the landlord should have treated the inspection findings as urgent.
  4. Treating the case as urgent, such as scheduling a damp and mould survey within its urgent repairs timescales, would have been consistent with its stated approach. However, the evidence shows that a damp and mould survey took place on 13 September 2024, 17 working days after the problem had been identified. The lack of urgency meant the landlord did not act in line with its stated approach, prolonged the household’s exposure to damp and mould, and undermined the credibility of its commitment to respond quickly to such issues.
  5. These concerns are made more serious by the landlord’s wider obligations under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 and Government expectations set through standards such as the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. These require landlords to make sure their properties are safe, suitable to live in, and free from health risks, particularly where vulnerable household members could be affected. In this case, the landlord’s inspection on 22 August 2024 confirmed the presence of damp and mould. The resident’s stage 1 complaint also described the conditions in her home as unsuitable for her children and included a request for alternative accommodation.
  6. Given these circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to review the household’s living conditions and decide whether the property remained suitable to occupy during its investigations. Because no such assessment took place, we cannot say whether the property remained suitable to live in during this period. This means it is likely the landlord would not have known either. That was a failing. Without an assessment the landlord risked leaving the resident’s household in poor conditions and without full use of the home for longer than necessary.
  7. The same inspection in August 2024 noted that ‘temporary accommodation could be considered’. Decisions about temporary moves would usually be made, or at least checked, in line with a landlord’s decant policy. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord followed through to provide a decision on whether temporary accommodation would be arranged. This failure to follow-through meant the landlord missed a further opportunity to reduce the household’s exposure to damp and mould while the situation was under investigation.
  8. It is positive that, following the damp and mould survey on 13 September 2024, the landlord acted quickly to complete mould removal and prevention works throughout the resident’s home. Its records confirm that it also installed a new bathroom extractor fan the following week. This demonstrated a more proactive and coordinated approach than its earlier handling of the matter and indicated that it was taking the identified issues seriously.
  9. However, the landlord’s records from the damp and mould survey also noted the need for a camera drain inspection and for a disability ramp at the rear of the property to be cut back to stop it affecting the damp proof course. There is no evidence these further repairs were completed, which means not all identified causes of the damp were addressed.
  10. In its August 2025 inspection, the landlord confirmed that a drain camera survey had still not been carried out and raised a new job to complete this, almost a year after it was first recommended. It also noted mould spotting in several rooms, likely from condensation, and raised a job to treat this. While these actions may now address some outstanding issues, the delay in reaching this stage was significant and likely caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience during that time.

Damage to belongings

  1. The resident told the landlord that her belongings had been damaged from the mould in the property. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised her to complete a claim form so it could consider the damage. The resident told us that she did not return the form because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s overall handling of the situation.
  2. In July 2025, during a review of the case, the landlord offered the resident £935 compensation for the damage to her belongings which it said was based on photographs she had supplied in her original complaint. This sum included £65 to reflect its late handling. Taking this step showed a proactive effort to reach a resolution despite the incomplete paperwork.
  3. While the landlord recognised the delay by including £65 in its offer, the fact it held the photographs much earlier means it could have made this offer sooner. Waiting 10 months after the end of the complaints process was a missed opportunity to provide timely redress.
  4. That said, as the landlord did not receive the completed claim form from the resident, its approach of using the photographs provided to assess and value the damage was reasonable in the circumstances. It must now pay the £935 it offered to the resident, if it has not already done so.

Conclusion

  1. Overall, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould in the property.
  2. The evidence shows serious failings by the landlord over a prolonged period. It had several chances to put things right but did not take them. Earlier repairs that were identified were not completed and have since had to be raised again, showing a lack of follow-through and effective action. The landlord also failed to deal with all known causes of damp or link its actions together to resolve the wider problem.
  3. The landlord was aware that the household included a young baby and children with asthma and disabilities. This meant it had a greater responsibility to act quickly to protect the family from potential health risks. The failure to find and fix the sources of the water and damp left the resident living with constant worry that her children’s health could be harmed. The uncertainty over whether the home was safe would have been especially distressing for any parent in her position.
  4. Poor communication and lack of clear updates have further undermined the landlord-resident relationship and reduced the resident’s confidence in its ability to manage repairs effectively. These failings caused significant distress and inconvenience. For this resident, with her children’s health at risk, the impact was likely even greater.
  5. During the complaints process, the landlord offered the resident £175 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her concerns. This amount fell far short of the impact likely caused living with water coming through the floor and ongoing damp that was not fully addressed. In July 2025, the landlord increased its offer to £675 following a review of the case.
  6. While the higher offer was a more realistic reflection of the circumstances, making it so long after the complaints process reduced its effectiveness as timely redress. We therefore do not consider the landlord’s offer went far enough to put things right for the resident.
  7. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where we have determined that there was severe maladministration which has severely impacted the resident, we may order landlords to pay residents a financial remedy of £1000 and over, to put things right. In this case, the landlord must pay the resident £1200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the household by its failures in the handling of the reported concerns.
  8. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £675 compensation related to its handling of the leak in the resident’s property, which can be deducted from the overall compensation if it has already been paid.
  9. We also consider it appropriate that the landlord provide financial redress to reflect the household’s loss of full enjoyment of the home. Between 18 September 2024 (the date of its stage 2 complaint response) and 15 August 2025 (when further repeat and outstanding repairs were raised), a 47-week period passed in which damp continued to affect several areas of the property. This was significant enough to damage belongings and likely limit the family’s use of the home as a whole. While it may not have prevented the use of 1 entire room, the overall impact on the family’s living conditions was considerable. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, a 10% amenity loss calculation has therefore been applied.
  10. During this 47-week period, the resident was charged £110.57 in rent per week for 28 weeks between 18 September 2024 and 6 April 2025, and £113.56 per week between 7 April and 15 August 2025, totaling £5253.60. Applying a 10% reduction for loss of amenity results in compensation of £523.36.
  11. While this figure cannot fully capture the inconvenience and disruption the resident experienced, it represents a fair and proportionate sum given the circumstances. The loss of use and enjoyment payment is not intended to be a rent refund, or rebate. Rather, rent provides an objective basis for approximating the loss of amenity.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s records show that the resident raised a formal complaint on 7 August 2024 and asked for an update 5 working days later. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s follow up and instead acknowledged the complaint 12 workings days after it was raised. Its acknowledgement did not provide an apology or explanation for the delay.
  2. The landlord then issued its stage 1 complaint response 5 working days after the late acknowledgement. While this was within the timeframe for responding to a complaint once acknowledged, the overall process fell short of what the resident should have experienced.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, available on our website, requires landlord to take responsibility for service failures, keep residents informed, and put things right when they go wrong. Although the delay here was relatively short, a timely acknowledgment and apology would have been a reasonable step. By failing to do this, the landlord likely left the resident feeling unimportant and undermined her confidence in the complaints process at a time when she was already anxious about her housing situation.
  4. Given the landlord’s failure to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on time, to provide an explanation for the delay, or to apologise, we find service failure in its complaint handling.
  5. Where we have determined service failure by a landlord that may have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance sets out that we may order landlords to pay residents a financial remedy of £50 to £100, to put things right. In this case, the landlord must pay the resident £100 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this investigation. The apology should be made by a senior member of staff at director level or above. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available to view on our website.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £2758.36 made up as follows:
      1. £935 it already offered for the damage to her belongings
      2. £1200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the household by its failures in the handling of the reported concerns
      3. £523.36 for reduced use and enjoyment of the property due to its poor handling of the reported concerns
      4. £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her complaint

These amounts replace the landlord’s previous offers of compensation, which can be deducted from the overall compensation if any amounts have already been paid.

  1. Meet with the resident in person to discuss the outstanding repairs within the property. This meeting must be held by a senior member of staff at director level. Following this meeting, the landlord must produce an action plan that sets out:
    1. The repairs required to address the source of the leak, condensation, damp and mould in the property
    2. Clear timescales for completing each stage of works
  2. Share with the resident a copy of the photograph it holds showing the dehumidifier in her home. This must be done in person. If the landlord cannot confirm that the dehumidifier was supplied, it must offer further compensation to address the impact of not supplying one.
  1. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.