Broadland Housing Association Limited (202421070)

`Decision
Case ID	202421070
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Broadland Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	26 November 2025

Background

1. The resident has lived in a one bedroom bungalow since 11 March 2021.
2. The resident was reporting damp and mould issues throughout the property to the landlord. He said the issue was particularly bad in the bedroom. As such, he said he sleeping on a sofa in the living room. He was concerned the damp and mould was affecting some of his pre-existing health conditions.
3. Initially the resident wanted the landlord to fix the damp and mould issues in the property. However, as time passed he started asking the landlord to rehouse him instead.

What the complaint is about

4. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a.             Reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property.

b.             The resident’s request to be rehoused.

c.             The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. We found:

a.             Maladministration in how the landlord handled reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property.

b.             No maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s requests to be rehomed.

c.             Service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould handling

6. The landlord only identified some of the failings it made in the handling of the damp and mould in its responses. It caused significant delays to completing initial investigations and treatment of the mould and further works to resolve the issue satisfactorily. Its communication at times was poor, and it failed to fully recognise the impact the issue had on the resident in its final response.

Rehousing request

7. The landlord gave the resident accurate advice on the moving options available to him on multiple occasions. It also offered to assist in pursuing these options and appropriately managed his expectations.

Complaint Handling

8. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint response as both stages. The landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge this or offer reasonable redress for these delays.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £575 made up as follows: ·£500 for the additional delays, and subsequent inconvenience, identified in this determination. £75 for poor complaint handling, including response delays at both stages.   This must be paid directly to the resident and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.   This compensation is in addition to the compensation the landlord has previously offered. If the landlord has not already done so, it should pay this compensation to the resident also and provide evidence of this to the Service.	No later than 24 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 September 2023	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issues in his property. He said it had taken no action to try and resolve the issue and he was sleeping on his sofa as his bedroom was particularly affected.
18 September 2023	The resident complained again, following a mould wash/treatment at his home that day. He said the chemicals used affected his breathing and other pre-existing health conditions. He wanted the landlord to rehouse him and offer compensation for the distress the damp and mould had caused.
19 October 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: The resident first reported damp and mould in January 2023. It completed mould treatment in September 2023 after two failed access attempts in March and it cancelling an appointment in July. Operatives recently detected a damp smell, external brickwork issues, and bedroom condensation. The resident had taped over vents and extractor fans to block draughts. There had been delays and it issues with how it handled the mould treatment. It would offer £600 compensation for delays, poor handling, and stress. It would to inspect loft insulation and look into installing alternative vents to reduce draughts.
28 March 2024	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said: The landlord failed to complete promised inspections. The damp and mould remain unresolved. Previous treatments harmed his health. His bedroom was still unusable. The compensation offer was inadequate. He wanted it to fix the damp and mould issues or rehouse him.
23 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response following a panel meeting. It: Said property allocations are managed by the council and reiterated moving options. Confirmed two mould washes were completed but acknowledged the issue persisted for a long time. Said some of the resident’s actions had not helped the damp and mould issues. Maintained the original £600 compensation was fair. Agreed to complete a full condition survey within 4 weeks and carry out repairs with the resident’s consent. Provided Ombudsman referral details.
Events after the complaint process	On 14 June 2024, the landlord’s survey found faulty fascias and guttering were causing water ingress. It repaired the fascias and guttering and fitted cowls on vents to reduce draughts, though the exact date of these works is unknown.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord had failed to resolve the damp and mould issues or satisfactorily respond to his request to be rehoused.   He said he wanted the landlord to move him and increase its compensation offer.

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	Reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

Scope of investigation

9. When the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman, he mentioned the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould had impacted several pre-existing health conditions he had.
10. Although the Service can consider the general distress and inconvenience of the situation on the resident, we cannot 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 her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. That is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue the option.
11. Additionally the resident has told the Ombudsman that the damp and mould issues in his property are still ongoing. In this determination we will consider events up to when the landlord issued it stage 2 response including any further actions it promises within this. Any ongoing issues past this date have not been through the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, the resident needs to raise this with the landlord as a new complaint before the Ombudsman can potentially investigate it.

Damp and mould handling

12. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says once it receives a report of damp and mould it will firstly treat the issue and identify if any further works are needed. It says it will reinspect any treatments applied to ensure they have worked and identify if other repairs are still required.
13. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure places repairs into different categories depending on their severity. Damp and mould repairs are in the “Responsive Repairs – A” category and it aims to respond within 30 working days of report. It also says it will prioritise repairs for residents with reasonable adjustments or where there is a safeguarding concern.
14. The resident’s tenancy agreement says he must allow access to the landlord’s operatives and contractors at reasonable times for repairs.
15. The resident complained that the landlord was taking too long to complete repairs to resolve the damp and mould issues in his property. When it did initially treat the mould he said the chemicals it used had impacted his health. At stage 2 he said investigations it promised to complete at stage 1 never materialised and the damp and mould issues were still present.
16. Across both the landlord’s complaint responses it acknowledged the damp and mould issues had been ongoing for a significant amount of time. It also recognised it had not given the resident the correct information about not accessing the rooms it treated in September 2023. However, it also said some of his actions had not helped the situation. This included taping over the ventilation into the property and not allowing its operatives access to inspect or complete repairs on multiple occasions.
17. At stage 1, the landlord offered the resident £600 compensation: £500 for delays in treating mould and lack of warning about irritation from works, and £100 for stress and inconvenience. It also agreed to inspect the loft for insulation and consider installing alternative ventilation fans to reduce draughts. At stage 2, it maintained the compensation was fair but committed to completing a full condition survey of his property within four weeks and agreeing any necessary works with him.
18. Parts of the landlord’s response were reasonable and appropriate. The landlord acknowledged some failings in its complaint response, apologised, and at stage 1 offered £600 compensation. This reflected the seriousness of its mistakes, particularly given the resident’s health conditions. When it carried out further mould treatments in 2024, it used a different product to prevent irritation and explained this to him. This approach was appropriate given his concerns about the initial treatment in September 2023.
19. Additionally the landlord also warned the resident about the adverse impact of taping over fans and vents and asked him to remove the tape. From March 2024 onwards, he refused access for inspections or repairs several times due to a breakdown in the landlord-tenant relationship. It was reasonable for the landlord to highlight this in its responses, as these actions limited what it could do to effectively deal with the damp and mould issues.
20. However, there were also parts of the landlord’s response which were not reasonable or appropriate.
21. For example, the landlord failed to acknowledge how long its initial treatment of the damp and mould took from when the resident first reported the issue. It took nine months from the his initial report in January 2023 to complete a mould wash and treatment in September 2023. This significantly exceeded the 30 working day timeframe stated in its repairs procedure.
22. Although the landlord said at stage 1 part of the delay was due to two failed access attempts in March 2023, there is no evidence it arranged treatment or attempted a visit that month. Records show the earliest appointment was raised in July 2023 but it cancelled shortly beforehand due to “unforeseen circumstances”. It promised to rebook but did not do so. The September appointment only happened after the resident repeatedly chased it. It also cancelled another inspection in January 2024 for the same reason and again failed to rebook without him chasing.
23. The landlord incorrectly stated it had tried to complete a treatment in March 2023 in its stage 1 response, which was not appropriate. In its stage 2 response it then said it had completed a treatment in the March, which was incorrect. Not acknowledging that it took 9 months to complete initial works was neither reasonable or appropriate and impacted the view it took overall of its handling of the issue.
24. The landlord promised at stage 1 to consider installing alternative vents and fans and to inspect the loft for insulation. While it did inspect the loft, there is no evidence it followed up on the other issues or updated the resident. It only carried out necessary works to vents and insulation after a property condition survey in June 2024, which was six months after its stage 1 commitment. Although no timeframe was set, this delay far exceeded its repairs policy and was therefore unreasonable.
25. Between December 2023 and April 2024, the resident chased the landlord for updates on the damp and mould issue, even after it acknowledged at stage 1 that he had needed to continually chase. This showed poor communication and a failure to learn from its mistakes. It did not acknowledge this in its stage 2 response, despite him raising the issue in his escalation. This was not reasonable as it should have responded to his concerns.
26. The landlord did not adequately consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when addressing the damp and mould issue. Its records confirm it knew he had multiple health conditions before the issue arose. He told it the problem prevented him from using his bedroom, forcing him to sleep on his sofa. Nothing in the evidence shows it considered whether it could adjust its services in light of his vulnerabilities. This breached its repairs policy, which says it will consider circumstances and any vulnerabilities when approaching how to complete a repair.
27. Overall, parts of the landlord’s response were reasonable. It acknowledged some failings, apologised, and offered compensation. However, it did not recognise all failings or fully acknowledge the impact on the resident. Some responses contradicted themselves and included incorrect information that it then based its redress on. It failed to recognise actions promised at stage 1 never materialised and did not address this in its final response. It also repeatedly exceeded the timeframes in its repairs policy for resolving the damp and mould issue.

Complaint	Request for management transfer
Finding	No maladministration

28. The landlord’s allocations policy says the local council controls all of its property allocations. It says on occasion it may offer an internal transfer to a resident, but this has to be agreed with the local authority.
29. In his complaints, the resident said he wanted the damp and mould issues resolved or to be moved to another property. If moved, he said he would need a two-bedroom property instead of his current one-bedroom.
30. Across both responses, the landlord said it explained the moving options available to him, including applying for rehousing through the local council and mutual exchange. It repeatedly advised him it could not offer an internal transfer and managed his expectations about moving to a two-bedroom property, as he only had a one-bedroom need.
31. The landlord’s approach was reasonable. Evidence shows it explained the available options several times and offered support if he wished to pursue them. It repeated this offer in its stage 2 response. The information it gave was accurate and aligned with its policy.
32. The landlord did not explain in its response why it had not considered him for an internal transfer. However, evidence shows it advised him outside the complaint response that he needed to register with the local council before it could consider an internal transfer. Even without reiterating this in its response, the omission did not affect its overall position.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

33. The landlord’s complaint policy requires it to acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within three working days, contact the resident, and issue a response within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
34. For stage 2 complaints, the policy requires a panel hearing within 20 working days of receipt, an invitation for the resident to attend, and a response within three working days of the hearing. This timescale was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at the time of the complaint.
35. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged its reply was delayed and outside policy timeframes. It apologised, as it took 27 working days to respond.
36. The landlord took 39 working days to respond to the stage 2 escalation made on 28 March 2024, issuing its reply on 23 May 2024. Despite taking almost double the time allowed, it failed to acknowledge the delay or offer redress.
37. The stage 2 response also incorrectly stated the escalation date as 8 April 2024, when evidence shows it was 28 March 2024. Even using its stated date, the response was still outside policy timeframes at 32 working days. At stage 2, the resident chased the landlord for its response several times. This impact was not acknowledged in its reply.
38. Overall, both complaint stages were delayed. The landlord only acknowledged and apologised for the stage 1 delay. It failed to address the stage 2 delay or offer redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. Overall the landlord’s record keeping was good. It had thorough communication records and minutes from meetings, including the stage 2 panel meeting.
40. However, the landlord’s repairs records were lacking in key information, including dates repairs were completed on and the exact works completed.

Communication

41. There were issues with the landlord’s communication with the resident. For example, between December 2023 and April 2024 it failed to respond to multiple requests for a callback from the resident. It also failed to rebook appointments it cancelled twice despite promising to do so.