Bristol City Council (202431904)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431904

Bristol City Council

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of damp and mould in her bedroom and associated repairs, including to a window.
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the 3-bedroom house since November 2022 with her 3 children.
Both the resident and the landlord have advised us that a tenancy inspection took place in April 2024. However, we have not been given a record of this, despite being requested, showing if any repairs or issues were found or reported at the inspection.
On 15 September 2024, the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
1. she had reported a mould problem within 4 months of moving in.
2. a surveyor’s appointment did not go ahead despite her attempting to schedule it 6 times.
3. she had also reported the mould and that her bedroom window was “falling apart” at the tenancy inspection and had heard nothing further.

The resident said she was concerned her living conditions were unsafe and had contacted a law firm. She asked the landlord to fix the window and to inspect the mould.

The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 23 October 2024 briefly addressing the resident’s concerns. It acknowledged a failing in its response to the damp and mould problem. However, it did not accept any failings in respect of the bedroom window because it said the resident had not previously reported this issue. The landlord confirmed a surveyor would inspect the property on 24 October 2024.
Following the surveyor’s appointment, the resident asked to escalate her complaint on the same day. She said the surveyor had found external problems causing damp and mould spots. The resident said living with damp and mould may have caused her asthma to worsen and she incurred costs from buying cleaning materials to tackle the problem.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 20 November 2024, it said it had missed an opportunity to address the mould problem sooner. It awarded £100 compensation, made up of £50 for the cleaning products, and £50 for the time and trouble the resident had been caused.
After the complaint process ended, the landlord raised a works order in mid-January 2025 for repointing the brickwork around the window. The landlord appointed a contractor but it advised the landlord in early-April 2025 that it was unable to take on the work because of the complexity of the problem. While we have seen no other records after this point, the resident told us the landlord has put up scaffolding and appointed a specialist contractor. As far as we could ascertain from the available evidence, the repairs were outstanding at the time of issuing this report.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded. She advised that her health may have been affected and she has been caused worry about the possible impact on 2 of her young children that also sleep in the bedroom. She is seeking more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The records show the resident reported a damp problem in her bedroom in April 2023. There was no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord inspected the property at this at the time. The resident said this was partly because she cancelled the surveyor’s appointment. She said she was then unable to reschedule it despite trying to 6 times. There were no records in the contact logs provided of these calls. As we are unable to establish what happened, this investigation focuses on events from April 2024 when the tenancy inspection took place.
We recognise the resident is worried that her asthma may have worsened because of her living conditions. The courts or a liability insurer are better placed to consider if there is a link between damage to someone’s health the actions of a landlord. In personal injury claims, both parties usually appoint independent medical experts to provide insights, which is not something we do. Consideration in this investigation will be given to any distress and inconvenience that any failings on the landlord’s part may have caused.
The landlord has an obligation under the resident’s tenancy agreement to carry out repairs to her property within a reasonable timeframe. Our spotlight report on repairs, published in March 2019, highlighted the need for “landlords [to] keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.” This is so it can demonstrate that it has met its obligations. In practice, this means that a landlord should be able to evidence what repairs were reported, what action it took and when, and whether any further works were required. In this case, the record’s provided did not include all this detail. While the gaps in the evidence made it more challenging for us to establish a timeline of events, it was not a barrier to us reaching a decision in this case. It does though mean the landlord has not been able to evidence that it always met its repair obligations. We will highlight any gaps and, where appropriate, any other relevant evidence we have considered, including the resident’s account.

Damp and mould

According to the landlord’s damp and mould policy it takes a “zero tolerance” approach to tackling the problem. It states that this includes:
1. providing relevant training to all customer-facing staff.
2. first considering if the cause could be structural.
3. recording all cases and the outcomes.
4. supporting residents to reduce the problem, such as advice on cleaning small areas of mould.
An aspect of the resident’s complaint was that she said she reported the damp and mould problem affecting her bedroom at the April 2024 tenancy inspection. While we are unable to verify this, we have decided that it is more likely than not that the resident did raise this at the inspection. This is based on the available evidence that:
1. the resident reported a damp and mould problem in her bedroom in April 2023 that, based on the records, was not inspected.
2. the resident’s account and the landlord’s acknowledgement in its complaint responses that it failed to investigate the issue.

It is a failing that the landlord cannot demonstrate that it took any of the actions listed above from its damp and mould policy. So, it was appropriate for the landlord to take accountability for this in its complaint response and to try to put things right.

When the resident complained in mid-September 2024, almost 6 months after the inspection, she said “chunks of concrete” around the window had fallen out and she was fearful it was unsafe. This was the first time, from what we have seen in the evidence, that the resident reported the problem with the window. We recognise some of the landlord’s records are poor or lacking. However, there was also no challenge from the resident to its stage 1 decision that she had not previously reported the window issue. We find the landlord’s position on this point is therefore reasonable, based on the available evidence.
The stage 1 response said a surveyor would inspect the issues on 24 October 2024. This was appropriate because there were no records that we have seen of the damp and mould being inspected up to that point. It was also in line with its damp and mould policy to assess for structural causes.
We are satisfied that the inspection went ahead, given the resident referred to it within her escalation request. However, we have seen no notes or records of the surveyor’s inspection. Again, this is a failing because the damp and mould policy states the landlord will keep records. The resident confirmed in her email that the surveyor had found damp and mould, and that it was caused by outside damage to the property. This should reasonably have been recorded by the landlord. We have seen a works order from 14 January 2025 showing the repairs the landlord raised to address the problems reported. These state the brickwork around the window needed repointing. There was no reference to damp and mould in the records we have seen. However, according to the landlord’s damp and mould policy, one of the causes of penetrating damp is “damaged or aging brickwork”. It therefore appears that the landlord had considered that this was a possible cause of, or was contributing to, the issues affecting the inside of the property.
In her escalation, the resident said she wanted to be compensated for money spent on mould cleaning products. The complaints policy states that requests to be compensated for damages or loss will be referred to its insurance team. However, the landlord awarded £50 compensation for the cleaning products in its stage 2 response. It was not unreasonable for it to reimburse the resident through the complaint’s procedure. However, in accordance with its policy, it should have referred the matter to its insurer to consider further. The resident also reported that the damp and mould could have caused her asthma to worsen. But the landlord did not address this specifically, which was inappropriate. While the complaints policy does not stipulate what should happen in such circumstances, it would have been reasonable to also refer this to its insurer so that a personal injury claim could be considered. As such, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to how the resident said she had been affected.
The damp and mould policy states that where compensation is paid for a complaint it will be made in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. The landlord’s award of £100 (including £50 for the distress caused) was within the range our guidance recommends for minimal impacts experienced over a short duration. This amount was not proportionate for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the 7 months between the inspection and the landlord’s final response. The situation had also clearly deteriorated by the time the resident complained, and she then felt concerned for the safety of her family.
The repairs identified in late October 2024 are still outstanding. We recognise this is partly due to the fact the issue has been found to be more complex. The damp and mould policy states for complex cases, defined as requiring “intrusive, structural or large-scale works”, it may complete them under a programme of works. It states that in such cases it may look for an interim solution, provide an action plan, and will keep the resident updated. This approach is in line with the recommendations made in our 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould. In this we recognised that the causes can sometimes be complex to diagnose and fix. In such cases, we said we expect landlords to look for interim solutions (such as professional mould treatments) to improve the conditions for residents living in properties effected by damp and mould.
After the complaint process ended, the records show there was an unexplained delay of around 52 working days between the landlord identifying the repairs and raising the works order. We have seen no records that it has considered any interim solutions. There was no evidence in those shared that the landlord has been keeping the resident updated regularly about the repairs. While true, it was apparent that the resident has received some updates as she confirmed a second, specialist contractor had been appointed. However, she said she had not been told when the work would start and what it would involve. In the circumstances, the landlord has not evidenced that it has followed its policy for dealing with complex damp and mould cases. We have therefore ordered the landlord to show us evidence that it has or is following its process. And if not, that it should now do so.
In view of the above, we are not satisfied the evidence shows the landlord has been proactive about resolving the damp and mould. Or that it has looked for ways to improve the situation for the resident in the interim. The landlord has also not shown that it learned from the things that went wrong in this case. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration and have ordered that it takes further actions, including paying more compensation.

Associated complaint

On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applied from 1 April 2024 and was therefore in place when the resident complained.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process that aligns with the requirements of the Code. It states that it will:
1. acknowledge and define the complaint to the resident within 5 working days.
2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
3. inform a resident if it needs an extension to the above timescales and the reasons why.
4. address all points raised in the complaint definition and set out the reasons for any decisions.
5. take appropriate action to put things right, including giving an apology and taking learning.
While the landlord appropriately sent acknowledgements within 5 working days and responded within its timescales at stage 2, it took longer than it should to respond at stage 1. It exceeded the required timescales by around 13 working days and without informing the resident. This is a failing. Its initial response also failed to provide a meaningful assessment of how the landlord had handled the issues complained about. It did appropriately find a failing in its handling of the damp and mould report but what records it had relied upon was unclear. The landlord made some attempt to put things right in arranging a surveyor’s inspection. But it did not apologise, which is a basic expectation when a failing is identified. Therefore, the quality of the stage 1 fell significantly short of its own standards and that of the Code.
The landlord’s stage 2 response only went slightly further than its stage 1 response. It acknowledged that it should have addressed the damp and mould report sooner. It also apologised and offered compensation, which were appropriate actions. However, the lack of explanations and the low amount of compensation undermined its attempt to put things right. Based on the records seen, it also did not consider if it could learn from the complaint. Like the initial response, the standard of the final response was also poor and was a further missed opportunity to put things right for the resident.
We have seen that the landlord followed some of the required processes and timescales from its complaints policy and the Code. It also took some accountability for its failings and attempted to put things right. However, the standard of the investigation and the responses were poor. Neither showed that the landlord had meaningfully sought to understand what went wrong and why. So, we have found maladministration and have ordered the landlord to take further actions to remedy the impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of damp and mould in her bedroom and associated repairs, including to a window.
2. associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has completed the following actions:
1. apologised to the resident for the additional failings identified in this report.
2. paid the resident £550 compensation, made up of:
  1. £400 for the failings relating to damp and mould in the bedroom.
  2. £150 for the complaint handling failings.

If the landlord has already paid the compensation of £100 offered, this may be deducted.

provided an action plan to the resident for the outstanding repairs relating to the damp problem, including how frequently it will keep her updated if the work is not due to start soon. It should also show us that it has considered if there are any interim repairs it can do to improve the situation for the resident (in line with its damp and mould policy).
provided details to the resident about how she can make a claim against its insurer.

Within 6 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence it has:
1. given training or feedback to staff about its damp and mould policy, including the importance of keeping clear and accurate records.
2. given training to complaint handling staff on the requirements of the Code to provide explanations and apologies, particularly where acknowledging something has gone wrong. The landlord may wish to consider using our apologies guidance and checklist published on our website.