Birmingham City Council (202444007)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom maisonette with her husband and 4 children. She has reported damp and mould to the landlord before raising her complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not attend and complete all repairs and inspections to the property in line with its policy. It did not communicate with the resident effectively and there were significant delays. The works have not yet been completed.
7. The landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in line with its policy. The resident did not receive an answer in the time expected and did not have all of her concerns answered by the landlord.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The landlord’s repair policy defines repairs as emergency, urgent or routine. An emergency repair should be attended within 2 hours, urgent repairs within a maximum of 7 days, and routine within 30 days. It does not specify what types of repair fit into which category.
9. The landlord carried out mould treatment works in the children’s bedroom on 18 January 2024. It is not clear from the information that has been provided when the resident first reported the damp and mould. The resident has told us that she has been reporting damp and mould to the landlord for many years. This points to a record keeping failure.
10. The landlord then  completed a damp and mould inspection on 23 April 2024. It recommended that a mould wash was needed in all rooms and that a fan should be fitted to reduce the build up of condensation. The landlord installed the fan on 13 September 2024, after the resident made contact to chase the work. It is not clear if or when the other works required were completed. This also points to a record keeping failure.
11. The landlord’s contractors again visited the property on 31 January 2025 but were unable to access the walls to complete further mould washes. They reattended on 7 February 2025 and completed these works. The operative who attended suggested that internal insulation may need to be fitted to help reduce the issues with damp and mould.
12. On 28 April 2025 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the fan was not working properly. The landlord attended on 6 May 2025. It is not clear if the landlord completed any works on this date. This points to a further record keeping failure. Following this inspection the landlord agreed to carry out some additional works, including the installation of internal insulation to reduce the impact of damp and mould.
13. Each time the resident reported concerns about the condition of the property to the landlord it attended within the 30 day timescale allowed in its repairs policy. What is not clear is how long the landlord took to complete the works it identified. This points to a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
14. Throughout the complaints process the landlord’s communications with the resident has been poor. The resident has had to repeatedly contact the landlord to find out what was happening with the planned repairs and to find out what the next steps were going to be. This added to the inconvenience suffered by the resident as she was forced to spend additional time trying to resolve the issues with the property.
15. The resident also explained the concerns she had about the effect the damp and mould was likely to be having on her 4 young children. While we are unable to assess the impact that this was having on the health of her family, we can consider whether the landlord appropriately responded to her concerns. There is no evidence that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously or took the appropriate steps to answer her concerns either in its complaint responses or its handling of the substantive issue. It focussed solely on the works needed, and not the impact the resident was experiencing. This is also a failure.
16. The resident has raised some concerns about the works that the landlord has opted to complete to try to remedy the issue of damp and mould in the second bedroom. She does not think the option of fitting internal insulation will resolve the issue and says it will mean the room is too small to fit her furniture in. The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinions of its staff when deciding what work is needed to keep the property in good condition or to repair faults with the property.
17. The resident has also said that she thinks the offers of temporary accommodation made by the landlord have not been appropriate. These offers have been made after the landlord’s complaint process was completed and were not the subject of the complaint made to the landlord. Because of this, these are not something we can consider as part of the complaint.
18. The landlord made an additional offer of compensation to the resident on 10 November 2025. It offered £2,444.94 to the resident as it had identified that she did not receive a service in line with its policies and procedures. Had the landlord made this offer before we began investigating the complaint, and had it resolved the damp and mould issue, we could have considered this as reasonable redress. However, the landlord’s offer appears to have been made due to our involvement. As a result we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
19. It is not clear how the landlord arrived at the figure of £2,444.94, but it explains in it offer that this is made in recognition of the continued delays in completing the works and the distress and inconvenience this has caused to the resident. The landlord must make this payment to the resident if it has not done so already.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy says that at stage 1 a complaint will be answered within 15 working days. This includes a 5 day triage period followed by 10 days to investigate the complaint. This is not in line with  the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s complaints policy allows 20 working days for a response at stage 2.
21. The resident raised her complaint on 26 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 December and explained that a response would be provided within 15 working days. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 January 2025. This was 44 working days after the resident raised her complaint and more than 20 days after the landlord told the resident she would have a response to her complaint. This is a failing.
22. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 28 February 2025. This was not acknowledged until 25 April 2025. This is 29 working days between raising the escalation and receiving an acknowledgement. The landlord explained that this is because the issues were considered as a new complaint, though we have not seen any evidence that this was the case. This is also a failing.
23. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 April 2025. This was 3 days after the landlord acknowledged the complaint. The landlord’s response did not sufficiently address the resident’s concerns about the damp and mould and found that there had been no additional failures by the landlord. This is despite the resident highlighting that there were works that the landlord had not completed. Failure to properly identify and remedy these faults as part of its complaint response is a failing. It is also not in line with the spirit of the Code.
24. This meant that the resident had to wait longer for an answer to her complaint and that when she received a response it did not properly address her concerns. This caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience and led her to believe that her complaint was not being taken seriously by the landlord.
25. As there were multiple failures in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
26. The landlord’s compensation policy does not set out guidelines or bandings and instead says that decisions will be made on a case by case basis. Compensation will be based on our own remedies guidance. Our remedies guidance suggests that when there have been failures which have adversely impacted the resident that not been identified or put right by the landlord a payment of £100 may be appropriate. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.

Learning

27. The landlord’s complaints process did not follow its policy. There also seemed to be failures in the landlord’s handling of maintenance and repairs.
28. The landlord appropriately provided additional information to the resident in its stage 2 response. This was about rebanding and how she could apply for a larger property for her family. This was positive.
29. The landlord has taken positive steps in trying to work with the resident to find suitable temporary accommodation for her and her family while the works are completed. It has acted fairly in making 3 offers while considering the resident’s needs. This is also positive.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

30. Delays in answering the complaint were caused by failures in the landlord’s information management. There were repeated requests for information from the landlord’s contractor which could have been readily available to the landlord.
31. The landlord did not maintain appropriate records about the work that had been completed in the property. It failed to record and share the findings of its inspections. This added to the delays the resident experienced.

Communication

32. Communication with the resident was poor throughout the complaints process. There were often large gaps in contact or repeated emails explaining that extensions were going to be applied.