Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited (202447551)
|
Case ID |
202447551 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
6 November 2025 |
- The resident has been a tenant of the landlord at a 1-bedroom flat since September 2023. He reported an issue with damp at the start of his tenancy. As he considered the landlord was taking too long to resolve the issue, he complained in December 2024. He asked us to investigate because he did not consider the landlord compensated him sufficiently or fully recognised the impact the condition of the property had on his mental and physical health.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
- Reports of damp and mould.
- Associated complaint.
Our decisions (determinations)
- We found:
- Service failure in the landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould.
- No maladministration in the associated complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord fully acknowledging where it could have improved in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It took appropriate steps to deal with the issue, took on board any relevant learning and offered compensation that was within its policy guidelines and within the range we would have ordered to recognise the impact on the resident. However, it failed to respond to every issue raised, meaning some concerns went unaddressed.
- The landlord broadly responded at both stages of the complaint in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
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 |
The landlord must respond to the concerns raised by the resident about the costs he says he incurred:
It must respond in line with its compensation policy and explain any decision it makes clearly.
|
No later than 4 December 2025. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
22 September 2023 |
The resident moved into the property. |
|
25 September 2023 |
The resident told the landlord about a wall “he was concerned about” because damp patches had become worse. |
|
6 October 2023 |
The landlord raised a job to inspect the property on 10 October 2023. |
|
11 October 2023 |
The landlord said that its void’s manager would monitor the property as there was rising [damp] on an internal wall. |
|
16 October 2023 |
The resident informed the landlord that the [damp] had crept over the line the void manager had drawn on the wall and that the radiator had mould on it. |
|
16 January 2024 |
The resident reported that although the landlord had done some work on the wall in October 2023 (the work has not been recorded in the landlord’s records), operatives left a mess and the wall was still damp. He said he had to wipe “furry mould off the affected area” every 10 days. He also reported the window area in the bathroom and bedroom had black mould. |
|
31 January 2024 |
The landlord’s housing officer asked the resident for an update. The resident said the mould was “quite bad” around 3 windows and he had to treat the walls at least once a week. He said the landlord failed to return to fit a stop tap or after the works in October 2023. |
|
1 February 2024 |
The landlord’s housing officer arranged an inspection. The outcome of the visit was that the landlord raised jobs to attend to the property windows, to replace the internal stop tap in the kitchen and to skim the wall in the hallway when it had “dried out”. |
|
Between 22 February and 7 May 2024 |
The landlord fitted a key safe at the property so operatives could attend when the resident could not provide access and arranged jobs to carry out works to the windows and to complete a plastering repair. On 7 May 2024 the resident cancelled the plastering repair. |
|
29 May 2024 |
The landlord asked the resident for an update. The resident replied that “…all is well, will look at booking the wall to be plastered as it’s looking good.” |
|
24 September 2024 |
The resident reported damp and mould again. The landlord’s housing officer arranged an appointment for 1 October 2024 to inspect. (The records show this was because of the resident’s availability). |
|
1 October 2024 |
The landlord noted that there were issues with a shower that had been removed, which it considered was causing water ingress to the walls and passing into the hallway. The landlord said repointing works were required to an external wall, which were completed on 21 October 2024. |
|
14 October 2024 |
The landlord’s repairs inspector (the inspector) visited to investigate the wet wall. He noted cracks appearing in the living room, a damp smell upon entering the property and other issues. The resident reported having chest infections. The inspector began arranging approval for further works. |
|
18 November to 11 December 2024 |
Following a request for an update from the resident, the inspector told the resident that the further works had been approved. The resident discussed the detail of the works with the inspector in various emails. At some point around this time the landlord removed the property bath and found evidence of damp which required further investigation. |
|
11 December 2024
|
The resident complained to the landlord. He said he alerted the landlord to the issue with the wall when he first moved in and was concerned that it had taken so long to identify the underlying issue. He was aggrieved that the works would not now start before Christmas. He currently had no bath. He said although the inspector had suggested the landlord should find him alternative accommodation, his partner was due to visit him for the Christmas period. He said he was mentally and physically unwell, had had to take time off work and felt it was unfair to be paying rent to live in “a building site”. |
|
16 December 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said he had told the inspector that he preferred to remain at the property until the full extent of the works was known. Therefore, it had arranged for the bath and bathroom radiator to be temporarily refitted. (It is not clear when this happened). |
|
31 December 2024 |
Extensive works were raised to be completed on all rooms at the property. |
|
2 January 2025
|
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response.
|
|
6 January 2025 |
The Landlord discussed a temporary relocation during the works with the resident. It reported he was not happy with the options offered as he wanted to stay in the area. |
|
8 January 2025 |
The landlord agreed, having viewed pictures provided by the resident, that some of the works carried out had been of a poor standard. |
|
19 January 2025 |
The resident said he wanted to escalate his complaint. He said that he had cancelled the job on 7 May 2024 because the wall was still wet. He felt the situation had been going on too long, he had had to take time off work, had had to replace 2 sets of blinds and had to throw away mouldy clothes. In the circumstances he considered the offer of £670 was “insulting”. |
|
22 January 2025 |
A potential local temporary relocation was discussed with the resident. |
|
12 February 2025 |
The temporary relocation to the property previously discussed was abandoned as the property concerned also needed work. |
|
19 February 2025 |
The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It accepted it could have been in more contact with the resident between May and September 2024. It said it was trying to arrange a temporary relocation for him. Having visited the property, it accepted the impact the works had had on the resident and increased its offer of compensation by a further £250 to £920. It also set out the scheduling of other works. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate. He said he was unhappy with the offer of compensation, the failure to have identified the issues effectively at an earlier stage, the effect on his health and the money spent on blinds and on clothes that he had to throw away. He said it had also not taken into account the time he had to take off work. The resident says the works have still not been completed. |
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 landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
Investigation scope
- The resident has told us that some of the works at the property are still ongoing. How the landlord dealt with ongoing repairs it said it would be scheduling after its stage 2 response in February 2025 is separate to its response to the resident’s original complaint. If the resident remains unhappy with works at the property or any ongoing delays, he can complain to the landlord. If he remains unhappy with its response, he can ask us to investigate then.
- The resident has complained about how the situation affected his physical and mental health, saying this led to him having to take time off work. We are 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 he considers that his 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 he wants to pursue this option. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts. It will not be considered in this report.
The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould
- The landlord’s policy on damp and mould says it will take all reasonable measures to carry out investigations, implement required remedial repairs and undertake improvements to manage damp, mould and condensation. The resident was concerned that the landlord failed to initially identify the cause of the damp at the property and that it took too long to complete the required repairs, which caused him significant inconvenience.
- However, while the landlord did not immediately identify the cause of the damp, it responded in good time to the resident’s reports. It responded within days to the first report in September 2023. Even though it did not identify the cause of the issue initially it took appropriate steps on the information it had. When it found this did not resolve the problem, it investigated further, undertaking a further survey in October 2024, which resulted in further works. This further exploration caused the resident inconvenience, having to, for example, remove the property bath. But the landlord acknowledged this, discussed relocation with the resident and when that was not suitable for him, replaced the bath for a period and sought to, through its complaints process, remedy him for the accepted inconvenience the situation caused. Overall, it took reasonable steps to address the issues raised in a reasonable time and in accordance with its policy.
- When the resident escalated his complaint, he felt the landlord had focused on his cancellation of the wet wall plastering on 7 May 2024 to explain its failure to monitor the situation until he reported it again in September 2024. However, although the landlord accepted it should have contacted the resident between May and September 2024, the records show it had contacted the resident on 29 May 2024, when the resident reported the wall was, ”looking good”. This means that while it accepted it should have followed up with the resident, it had not failed to do so completely and the information the resident had provided in May 2024 had indicated that the steps it had taken so far were working.
- When for understandable reasons, the resident did not want to decant over the Christmas period, the landlord put the bath back in for him until it could begin works. When it identified some repointing might help with the issues, it arranged this within a reasonable time. While this type of intrusive activity would have been distressing and inconvenient, it was necessary to try to get to the cause of the damp at the property, and the landlord showed flexibility and awareness in its communications with the resident, for instance, immediately apologising and rearranging some works, when it accepted they had not been of a good standard.
- However, in its complaint responses, the landlord failed to address what the resident had said about the damage to his property or his claim that he had to replace a number of blinds. This was a failure to fully recognise the range of issues the resident complained about. Not doing so was counter to the Code, which states a complaint response must address each element of a complaint.
- Overall, the landlord took appropriate steps to respond to the issues at the property. After the resident’s reluctance to temporarily relocate in December 2024, it arranged a meeting with him in the new year to try and find a suitable home during the works. By the time of the stage 2 response, a possible relocation had just fallen through and it continued to work towards this after the stage 2 response until it was agreed that the resident would remain in place.
- The landlord recognised the inconvenience the situation had caused the resident. It offered him compensation that was in line with its guidance and with what we may have ordered if the landlord had not already provided reasonable redress.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, which is in line with our Code. It says the resident should receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint. It’s stage 1 response was in 13 working days. This is slightly over the timeframe but the landlord was in contact with the resident on 16 December 2024 and the delay, over the Christmas period, did not have an adverse effect. The landlord responded within its timeframe at stage 2.
Learning
- Apart from a failure to address some concerns, the landlord’s complaint handling was focused and clear on the substantive issue. It frankly acknowledged where it had gone wrong, provided a clear chronology of what it had done and was clear about what it had learnt from the complaint and about next steps.
- Throughout the complaint, the landlord’s communication with the resident was responsive and helpful.