Birmingham City Council (202424797)

Decision
Case ID	202424797
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Birmingham City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	24 February 2026

 

Background

1. The resident lives with his wife and 4 children in a 3 bedroom house. The household members have additional needs, including a respiratory condition and allergies, which the landlord is aware of. The resident complained of recurring damp and mould and asked the landlord to investigate and remedy the cause. Dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaints, he escalated his complaint to this Service.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s management of damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s management of damp and mould.
5. There was severe maladministration in its complaints handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not take timely or effective steps to investigate the underlying cause of the resident’s damp and mould reports. It relied on lifestyle explanations without carrying out early diagnostic assessment, treated only the visible symptoms over several months, and delayed completing the ventilation improvements recommended in August 2024 until December 2024. These missed opportunities caused prolonged inconvenience and frustration for the resident.
7. The landlord did not follow its Complaints Policy, as it failed to issue a stage 1 response, mishandled the resident’s escalation request, and closed the stage 2 complaint in error. It issued its stage 2 acknowledgement and final response on the same day, showing no meaningful review or learning took place. Throughout the process it provided unclear and inconsistent information, did not address the resident’s concerns about recurring damp and mould and did not take corrective action. These failures caused delay, confusion, and poor complaint ownership, falling far below expected standards.

 

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by the Chief Executive Officer. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1700 which it offered in its communication with this Service. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.   The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 24 March 2026
3	Case Review (service improvement) The landlord must undertake a review of this case. The review must identify: Why damp and mould was treated repeatedly without early diagnostic investigation. Why recommendations from the 30 August 2024 inspection were not actioned until December 2024. The reasons for multiple delays, including missed or cancelled appointments. How record‑keeping and internal communication contributed to confusion and delay. How complaint handling departed from policy, including failure to issue a stage 1 response and the incorrect closure and escalation of the stage 2 complaint. The review must specify: Clear findings. Concrete learning. Required actions to ensure adequate confidence in minimising the risk of any recurrence. Responsible officers and timescales for implementation. A copy of the report must be provided to the landlord’s Governance Board, the resident and to this Service.	No later than 21 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord should ensure it has an adequate level of confidence that relevant staff are trained on and otherwise equipped to deliver: The need to issue clear and complete stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. Correct escalation processes are consistently exercised. The Complaint Handling Code requirements relating to timeliness, clarity, and complaint ownership are consistently fulfilled.
It is recommended that the landlord should review its damp and mould procedures to ensure they align with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report, including avoiding early unconstructive lifestyle–related assertion and instead prioritise early diagnostic investigation and delivery of remedial actions.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 April 2024	The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint online. He complained about continuing problems with damp and mould at the property. He said that he had contacted his local Councillor and the landlord’s response to the Councillor was that the resident should contact the repairs team. He asked that the cause of the damp and mould be resolved.
12 April 2024	The resident received automatic acknowledgement of the complaint. The message stated that the resident would receive an acknowledgement and the name of an assigned officer within 48 hours.
10 July 2024	The resident wrote to the local Councillor. He said he had not received a response from the landlord to his complaint of 12 April. He said he had escalated his complaint on 21 May 2024 and had received no response, despite many telephone calls. He asked for an inspection of his property. He said his household had medical conditions and for 3 years the problems had not been resolved.
4 September 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint, referring to a request from the resident on 10 July 2024. It confirmed it would review the complaint at stage 2 and would respond within 20 working days.
4 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it had inspected the property on 30 August and there was no evidence of damp and mould recurring since the last treatment on 23 July 2024.  It said no action was required and the resident could report further repairs to the repairs team. It found his complaint “partly justified”.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted this Service. He said that he wanted the landlord to carry out repairs to resolve the damp and mould.

 

What we have not considered and why

8. The landlord told us the resident had made 5 formal complaints about damp and mould since April 2021. 2 of these complaints are evidenced in the material provided. The formal complaint referred to this Service was submitted to the landlord in April 2024. This investigation therefore focuses on events from January 2024, which was the first recurrence of damp and mould within the 12 months before the complaint. Earlier events have been considered for background but have not been assessed or determined as part of this investigation.

 

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 management of damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

9. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, places a duty on landlords to assess hazards within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedy.
10. The Ombudsman’s 2021 Spotlight Report “Damp and Mould: It’s Not Lifestyle” explicitly advocates against landlords against attributing damp and mould problems to residents’ lifestyle choices. The Ombudsman also emphasises that landlords should adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould, treating it as a health and safety issue and responding proactively to identify and address underlying causes.
11. The landlord’s Repairs Policy says routine repairs should be completed within 30 days of being reported. For larger or more complex repairs, residents should be advised of likely timescales.
12. The landlord told this Service that under the Conditions of Tenancy document, it was not responsible for condensation or the effects of condensation, unless it arises from a breach of its repairing obligations. Tenants must take reasonable steps to avoid moisture building up and causing damage.  It told us in respect of this case that “Mould growth at this property was found to be caused by condensation and overcrowding. … (the) tenant is not considered to have taken adequate steps to prevent moisture build up in the property. (We have also identified a disconnected kitchen extractor fan).”
13. The resident reported damp and mould on 5 January 2024. The landlord inspected on 17 January and recorded high levels of condensation. It declined the resident’s request to insulate external walls, indicating instead its assertion that the issue was lifestyle‑related.
14. A further inspection on 8 February 2024 identified damp and mould growth in the living room, bedrooms, kitchen and stairway. The landlord carried out a mould wash on 12 February. The resident contacted a local Councillor the following day to complain that each time the landlord treated the mould it would return within a few days. He complained that he had asked the landlord to find out what was causing the damp, rather than just dealing with the effects.
15. The landlord raised a works order to investigate the damp and mould on 9 May 2024, 55 days after the last mould wash treatment. It attended on 6 June, identified damp throughout the property, carried out another treatment but again no evidence has been seen that it investigated the causative factors. On 10 July the resident again asked for an inspection. On 23 July the landlord’s records show that it treated 3 bedrooms, stairs, living room and hallway for recurrent damp and mould.
16. Between 18 July and 27 August, the resident contacted the landlord seven times chasing an inspection. He raised concerns about the ongoing impacts on the household, including health conditions affecting his children and his wife.
17. Although the landlord carried out multiple mould washes, there were delays in arranging a substantive inspection of the cause of damp and mould. The evidence shows multiple points where the landlord could have taken appropriate action earlier in January, February, May, July and August 2024.
18. Although the resident made a formal complaint and sought help through an MP in February and a local Councillor in March and July 2024, an inspection to identify the root cause was not completed until 30 August 2024. That inspection led to recommendations for upgraded ventilation. However, the landlord did not complete these works until 19 December 2024, 8 months after the resident’s stage 1 complaint of April 2024 and 3 months after the end of the internal complaints process.
19. Throughout this period, the landlord continued to attribute lifestyle as the causative factor to the damp and mould issue without carrying out effective diagnostic surveys.
20. As a result, the landlord repeatedly carried out surface‑level treatments over a 238‑day period rather than addressing the underlying cause. The delay in completing ventilation improvements meant the resident continued to experience increasingly widespread damp and mould, made repeated chaser contacts, and experienced ongoing inconvenience and distress.
21. In view of the delays, missed opportunities to investigate, reliance on lifestyle explanations, and the prolonged impact on the resident, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Severe maladministration

22. The landlord’s Complaints Policy explains that it operates a 2‑stage complaints procedure. When a complaint is received, the landlord will acknowledge and triage it and respond at Stage 1 within 10 working days following this triage period. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they may request a Stage 2 review, which will be undertaken by a different complaints officer and responded to within 20 working days.
23. The landlord sent an automatic acknowledgement of the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 12 April 2024. The evidence shows the resident chased the landlord for a response on 21 May 2024, to which the landlord’s records show that it attempted to call the resident. Its system records show it recorded an investigation outcome on 7 June 2024 as “partly justified” and a delay reason as “workload”. It recorded no corrective actions and no requirement to associate the case with any improvement measures. This Service has also not seen evidence that the landlord sent the resident a formal stage 1 response.
24. Instead, on 10 July 2024 the landlord sent the resident a copy of an email it had sent to the local Councillor in response to their enquiry in March 2024.  This communication stated damp and mould treatment had been carried out on 20 February 2024 and the resident should contact the repairs team for further issues.
25. The landlord inappropriately relied on its communications with the local Councillor as a substitute for its complaint response. The copy of the Councillor enquiry response sent to the resident did not address the root cause of damp and mould, did not provide findings or meaningful outcomes to the complaint and was not clearly defined as a stage 1 response.
26. On 10 July 2024, the landlord’s records show that it received an email from the resident, which it appeared to treat initially as a stage 2 complaint. The resident asked why the issues he raised with the local Councillor had not been addressed. He also wrote again to the Councillor requesting an inspection of the property and expressing concern for the household’s wellbeing. The landlord’s system notes later record that the complaint at stage 2 was escalated in error.
27. On 27 August 2024 the landlord’s records state that the stage 2 had been closed incorrectly. It sent an acknowledgement of the stage 2 complaint to the resident on 4 September. Its system notes on 4 September 2024 stated the complaint outcome was partly justified, the delay reason was “Complex case”. It recorded no corrective actions and no requirement to associate the case with any improvement measures.
28. The landlord issued its final stage 2 response on the same day as its acknowledgment. It stated that following an inspection on 30 August 2024 it had identified that since the last mould treatment on 23 July, there was no recurrence of damp and mould, it had photographic evidence and no further action was required. It found that the complaint was “partly justified” due to the delay in arranging the damp and mould inspection.

Events Post Internal Complaints Procedure

29. On 11 February 2025, the landlord emailed the resident, following receipt of correspondence from this Service. It said it had reviewed the case and identified complaint handling failures. It offered the resident compensation of £225.
30. In its evidence to this Service, the landlord told us that it had first received a complaint about damp and mould in April 2021 and had received 5 separate complaints between April 2021 and May 2024. It stated that because it did not complete improvement works until December 2024, it considered it reasonable to award the resident compensation of £1350 for the damp and mould and £350 for its complaint handling failures. Its total compensation offer was £1700. The resident told this Service that as of February 2026, he has not received any compensation.
31. Although the later offers of compensation could put things right for the resident, the landlord failed to resolve the substantive issue of his complaint until several months after it had issued its final response. It also did not fully acknowledge its failings or make the increased offer of compensation until the case had been accepted by this Service for investigation. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances. This is particularly so given the absence of demonstrated learning or service improvement to prevent recurrence of the same failings.
32. In summary, the landlord failed to issue a Stage 1 response despite acknowledging the complaint on 12 April 2024. Instead, it relied on a copy of an email sent to a local Councillor, which did not address the resident’s complaint or provide any findings. It mishandled the resident’s escalation request, recorded the Stage 2 complaint as “closed incorrectly”, and issued its Stage 2 acknowledgement and final response on the same day, indicating no meaningful review had taken place. Throughout both stages, it did not provide clear outcomes, did not address the resident’s concerns about recurring damp and mould, and did not take corrective action. At stage 2, it failed to specify that further works had been recommended to upgrade the ventilation and erroneously told the resident that no further action was needed. These failures amounted to significant delay, confusion, and poor complaint ownership, contrary to its own policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
33. Taking all the above into account, the landlord’s complaint handling fell far below expected standards at every stage. The cumulative failures were serious, and their impacts on the household was exacerbated, prolonged, and avoidable. Accordingly, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaints management.

 

Learning

34. The landlord should carry out early diagnostic inspections when damp and mould recur, rather than relying on repeated surface‑level treatments. Staff should ensure an informed position is taken and avoid relying on lifestyle explanations before completing diagnostic investigations.
35. The landlord should follow its Complaints Policy, issue clear stage 1 and stage 2 responses, and ensure complaints are triaged and reviewed correctly.
36. Learning from complaints should be embedded in a meaningful manner into timed service improvement activities to prevent repeated failings.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. Record‑keeping in this case identifies improvement opportunities. The landlord should ensure actions, decisions and complaint responses are recorded clearly and accurately.

Communication

38. Internal communication processes should be strengthened so that recommendations, works orders and case updates are shared promptly and acted on without delay.
39. The landlord should provide timely updates to residents and set clear expectations about next steps.