Bernicia Group (202402680)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202402680 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Bernicia Group |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
29 October 2025 |
Background
- At the time of the complaint the resident was a tenant of the landlord in a 4-bedroom house. She lived there with her partner and children. The tenancy started on 10 July 2020. She moved to a new property in November 2024. The new home is owned by a different social landlord.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about:
- The level of compensation offered by the landlord following damage to the resident’s property caused by damp and mould.
- The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found that:
- The landlord offered reasonable redress to resolve the resident’s complaint for the level of compensation offered by the landlord following damage to the resident’s property caused by damp and mould.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The level of compensation offered by the landlord for damage to the resident’s property caused by damp and mould
- In the landlord’s complaint response, it acknowledged its failings, apologised, and explained what it had learnt from the complaint. It offered a level of compensation which was in line with its policy. These remedies were appropriate to the complaint and its failings, and in line with the expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord’s handling of the complaint
- The landlord unreasonably delayed its complaint response.
Putting things right
Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.
Order
Landlords must comply with our order in the manner and timescale we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our order by the due date set.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
|
No later than 26 November 2025 |
Recommendation
Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow it.
|
Our recommendation |
|
As is explained below, if it has not already done so the landlord should consider contacting the resident directly to explain how she can make a claim under its insurance policy. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
Between 15 February – 4 October 2023 |
The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord. A survey confirmed that works were required. The landlord could not gain access on 2 occasions and cancelled 2 planned visits due to staff sickness. |
|
9 October 2023 |
The landlord carried out a further survey, identified necessary works, and flagged the need for additional investigation due to worsening damp and mould. |
|
Between 27 November – 21 December 2023 |
Operatives attended in November 2023 to carry out scheduled works but left the job incomplete. The landlord delayed further work due to staff leave in December. That same month, an additional survey took place. The quick response team attended to carry out work, identified further repairs, and scheduled them for 20 January 2024. According to the landlord’s records, it did not arrange the appointment earlier because the resident was unavailable. The resident requested a full schedule of works on 3 separate occasions in November and December, but there is no evidence that the landlord provided this. She also reported mould in other rooms and asked for it to be addressed. |
|
22 December 2023 |
The resident complained at stage 1 of the landlord’s internal process about delays in damp repairs since the October 2023 survey. She also asked the landlord to compensate her for belongings damaged by the damp and mould. |
|
Between January – February 2024 |
The landlord cancelled further scheduled works, stating that an operative had an accident. Although works later resumed, they remained incomplete. A further survey took place in January, during which the resident received mould prevention advice. Works began on 4 February 2024 and identified the need for a specialist to carry out a survey beneath the resident’s property. |
|
7 March 2024 |
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 after the landlord failed to respond to stage 1. She stated that the landlord had not progressed the required works or provided a schedule. She also requested to be rehoused, saying the impact of damp conditions on her and her family’s health. |
|
11 March 2024 |
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint after previously informing the resident of several response extensions due to outstanding work. In its response it referred to earlier inspections and agreed works, explaining that a delay occurred because one of its operatives had an accident. It said that rehousing was not necessary to complete the works but advised the resident to provide medical records to support a rehousing request. The landlord confirmed that work began in February 2024 and that a specialist survey was identified as necessary during this phase. |
|
4 April 2024 |
The landlord held a stage 2 customer panel meeting. Its records show it subsequently called the resident to offer her £1000 towards cost of replacing items. |
|
Between 18 March – 10 April 2024 |
The resident informed the landlord that she had disposed of her mould-damaged sofa. Although the landlord offered professional cleaning, she declined, as the sofa was beyond repair. She said she preferred to move due to the extent of works required and the impact on her family and provided medical evidence supporting her rehousing application. After receiving this, the landlord approved priority a (band A) move. Minor works continued, but the damp and mould issues remained unresolved. |
|
11 April 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It acknowledged delays in addressing her concerns, failing to resolve the damp issue earlier, and asking her to provide her own evidence. It offered a resolution that included approving a priority move, promising removal support, new flooring, and assistance with sourcing and funding a replacement sofa. It also identified learning which it said will be put into practice to prevent a similar situation arising again. It offered £200 for replacement clothing and identified areas for service improvement and learning. However, the response did not mention the £1,000 compensation previously offered. |
|
8 May 2024 |
The landlord wrote to the resident summarising the panel meeting held on 4 April 2024. It increased its compensation offer to £1,000, intended to cover the cost of replacing items the resident had disposed of. It considered this a reasonable offer when combined with the removals service, flooring replacement, and the purchase of a second-hand sofa. |
|
Between 10 May – December 2024 |
The resident remained dissatisfied, stating that the compensation offered would not cover the damages. Following this, the landlord increased its offer to £1,250 via an email sent to the resident on 10 May 2024. It appears that this amount covered the replacement sofa and clothing previously discussed. The landlord said it could not provide a timescale for rehousing due to limited availability but offered to resume the works. The resident declined due to family reasons. She moved in November 2024, and the landlord provided removal services and new flooring as promised. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident brought her complaint to the Service, saying repeated reports of damp and mould led to health issues for the household. After several surveys and incorrect advice, water was found under the property. She sought further compensation from the landlord. |
What we found and why
The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.
|
Complaint |
The level of compensation offered by the landlord for damage to the resident’s property caused by damp and mould. |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
What we have not investigated
- As part of her complaint, the resident said the damp and mould affected the health of her household and pets. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Because this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.
The level of compensation offered by the landlord for damage to the resident’s property caused by damp and mould
- The resident complained about the landlord’s lack of action in carrying out repairs identified in its October 2023 survey. In its response, the landlord acknowledged delays and explained that one was caused by an operative’s accident. While the operative’s accident was unavoidable, nothing in the evidence suggests other delays were.
- Because of that it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failings, responded to all points raised in the resident’s complaint, and offered a range of remedies. These included a priority move, support with removal, new flooring, help sourcing and funding a replacement sofa, and compensation for belongings damaged by mould.
- The compensation offered was reasonable when assessed against the landlord’s compensation policy. It was at the upper end of what the landlord can offer for a complaint of this nature and aligned with the Ombudsman’s remedies for similar cases.
- Nonetheless, the resident felt the compensation was insufficient. The landlord’s policy states that claim’s over £1,000 must be referred to its insurer. As the resident raised concerns about the compensation amount after the complaint process had ended, the landlord did not have the opportunity to explain this. To pursue further compensation, the resident may wish to submit a claim to the landlord’s insurer. We have recommended that the landlord provide the resident with information about how to do this.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord operates a formal complaints process with 2 stages. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days and must be clearly explained to the resident. Stage 2 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days from the date of acknowledgement.
- The landlord extended its stage 1 complaint response several times. The resident made her complaint on 22 December 2023, but the landlord did not respond until 7 March 2024, citing outstanding works as the reason. In line with the Code, a response must be provided when the complaint outcome is known, not when outstanding actions are completed. In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not acknowledge the delay or offer a remedy to address it. Given the resident had needed to chase the landlord for its response, that was not reasonable.
- The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 7 March 2024 as she was unhappy with its response. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 April 2024, which was slightly outside its 20-working day policy timescale.
- The landlord offered the resident £1000 compensation for damp and mould damage before issuing its stage 2 complaint response. However, the final response offered only £200. The landlord corrected this 2 days later, by emailing the resident and confirming the full compensation of £1,250. Its speedy action reduced any potential confusion. However, its failure to acknowledge its delayed stage 1 complaint response left the matter unresolved.