Birmingham City Council (202317005)

Background

1. The resident lived in the property which was a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. She lived in the property with her husband and 3 children. The resident has asthma, she reported that her children had breathing difficulties while living in the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould in the property.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould in the property.
   2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the damp and mould.

4. The landlord did not evidence it acted with urgency or fully resolved all the issues in the property. There is no evidence the landlord considered the risks or the habitability of the property throughout the duration of the complaint, which was a significant failing.

Handling of the complaint.

5. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was poor and there is no indication the landlord took steps to learn from the outcomes. It was not appropriate that the landlord only responded following intervention from this Service.

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.

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.

6. Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards that fall within the scope of the Housing Health and safety Rating System (HHSRS). The landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS. Where it has identified potential hazards, it should conduct additional monitoring of the property.
7. The MP said they had been liaising with the landlord regarding the conditions of the resident’s property since May 2022. While we do not dispute this, the landlord has not provided any records which evidence communication with the MP within the 12 months prior to the formal complaint. As such, we are unable to determine whether its actions were reasonable at that time. We have added learning for the landlord about its record keeping later in this report.
8. The landlord’s records show the resident reported damp and mould on 17 January 2023.  An inspection took place on 15 February 2023. It identified some damp and mould in all rooms. Notably, the bathroom had a high damp reading and there was no sign of damp in the bedroom. The report summarised that the property was overpopulated and there was a leak from the flat above. The surveyor provided a schedule of works. This included mould treatments in all rooms, to investigate the leak, replace sealant, plaster the bedroom, and clean out the guttering and gully.
9. The landlord booked a mould wash for 28 February 2023 and the notes said there was no access. The landlord’s notes stated that on 20 March 2023 the resident said she was unhappy about its appointment to carry out plastering. She said it would not resolve the damp and mould and the household suffered from asthma. The landlord subsequently cancelled the job due to no access.
10. The landlord attended to the resident’s initial reports in line with its routine repair policy. While the surveyor provided a clear schedule of works, we have not seen evidence of the landlord completing them. While residents must allow access for repairs, it was reasonable for the resident to query why the landlord would plaster the walls if it had not resolved the cause of the damp and mould. And there was no evidence of it investigating the leak. The landlord could have reassured the resident by showing consideration to the vulnerabilities reported and providing an action plan to resolve the issues. There is no evidence of it doing so. 
11. The records show the MP reported damp and mould throughout the property on 3 May 2023. On 10 May 2023, the resident informed the MP that the landlord attended on 8 May 2023, cleaned the mould, and painted the walls. She said the contractor said the problem would not be fixed as there was a leak and the property would need to dry out. The landlord has not provided any records from this visit, therefore we cannot substantiate the resident’s account. The MP then complained to the landlord.
12. In the formal complaint, the MP attached letters from professionals to show the impact on the household’s health and wellbeing. The letters showed that the resident had recently been treated in hospital for aggravated asthma symptoms which she felt were a result of the damp and mould. Her GP raised concerns and requested the landlord take urgent action and relocate the family. In a letter from school, they described how the resident’s child told staff that their house was not nice and had black on the walls. The child said they slept in the living room with the rest of the family so they could stop coughing. The school noted the child had health conditions which the resident felt was caused by living in damp conditions.
13. Given the many concerns highlighted in the letters, it would have been appropriate to assess the risks to the household and the habitability of the property. It carried out an inspection of the property on 18 May 2023 which said there were high damp readings in the bedroom and excessive rising damp in the hallway indicating a possible leak. It identified a similar scope of works to the previous one. However, there is no evidence of the landlord considering the risks to the household or the requests for alternative accommodation.
14. In its first stage 1 response the landlord said it resolved the issues on 10 May 2023. This was not appropriate, especially as it conducted the later inspection on 18 May 2023 which stated otherwise. It is concerning that at that point the landlord had carried out 2 inspections of the property, environmental health had also inspected the property, and they had all identified at least 1 leak. The landlord said the resident did not provide access for an appointment to repair and investigate the bathroom leak on 2 August 2023. However, the landlord was aware of a potential leak since February 2023 and it was not appropriate that it took 7 months to investigate it further.
15. In its second stage 1 response the landlord said it completed the bathroom works on 30 August 2023 and the works to remedy the defective plasterwork on 19 September 2023. It said it had not received any further reports from the resident since June 2023. It said the resident’s property was identified for an advanced damp and mould survey and she will be contacted for further inspection and remedial works. The landlord acknowledged the delays in addressing the leak and offered £150 compensation.
16. The landlord’s response was not appropriate. There is no evidence in the records or the response of the landlord addressing the leak. The landlord received a letter from a family worker in July 2023 which stated that during a home visit they observed the house to be damp and mouldy. They said the home was not habitable and the family were sleeping in the living room. They said it had been reported to the housing officer. We have not seen evidence of the landlord noting these concerns or responding to them, which is a failing. There is also no evidence of the advanced damp and mould survey taking place prior to the resident moving out.
17. All the supporting letters asked the landlord to consider moving the family, and other than discussing the resident’s housing application, there is no evidence to show the landlord considered temporary rehousing for the household. We find this was a significant failing and did not show consideration to its obligations under both the HHSRS and the Equality Act 2010.
18. On 23 November 2023 a certificate of completion was provided for the schedule of works produced on 18 May 2023. It said there was a defects liability period until 23 November 2024. This further suggests the second stage 1 response was incorrect in stating that it had completed all the works. The landlord has not provided any further information regarding the works carried out and whether it resolved the leak(s).
19. In the absence of further records, it is difficult to determine what happened in this case and whether the landlord’s actions were appropriate. If all the works were completed in November 2023, the time taken to do so was not appropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address the delay in its stage 2 response and the impact to the resident and her family in that time. The MP stated in February 2024 that the issues were ongoing. As such, we cannot conclude that the landlord acted fairly or in line with its obligations.
20. Overall, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it handled the reports of damp and mould within the property and the associated repairs. While it carried out some works to address the issues, it acted with a lack of urgency and did not show how it addressed the leaks. It did not consider the impact on the resident and her children, nor did it assess whether the property was habitable.
21. The landlord offered a total of £150 compensation, however, we do not consider this was sufficient for the likely significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over a prolonged period. It also does not recognise the period in which it failed to respond to or show consideration following the reports that the family were sleeping in the living room and the house was not habitable.
22. Considering the above findings, this constitutes maladministration.

23. At the time of the complaint, the landlord had a 3 stage complaint procedure. Stage 1 was to settle the complaint immediately. If that was not possible, it would provide a stage 2 response within 15 working days. It would provide a stage 3 response in 20 working days. The landlord’s current complaint procedure is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
24. The MP contacted the Ombudsman on 9 August 2023 due to the landlord’s lack of response to the formal complaint and we wrote to the landlord asking it to respond within 5 working days. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 23 August 2023 but on review we noted the response was not compliant with our Code at the time. We then referred it back to the landlord. As the landlord failed to respond by the stated timeframe, we issued a complaint handling failure order on 20 September 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on the same day and offered £50 to recognise its failures.
25. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 98 working days after the stage 2 escalation. This was following further intervention from this Service on 6 February 2024. This was again not appropriate or in line with its policies. The landlord apologised for the delay, however, it did not consider what learning it would take from its repeated failures. Nor did it consider the impact on the resident and any compensation to reflect that. The total compensation of £50 for its complaint handling failures was therefore not proportionate to the failings identified.
26. Taken altogether, as outlined in the report the landlord failed to provide sufficient redress to put things right or resolve the complaint within its complaint procedure. The landlord did not show any learning it would take from the complaint to ensure it would not repeat the same mistakes in future. And it was not appropriate it took intervention from this Service for the landlord to provide both its stage 1 and 2 responses. This unreasonably delayed matters and delayed the resident in bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman.
27. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The poor record keeping in this case will have contributed to the delays in this matter, as it was not always clear what happened and when. Therefore, landlord staff would have been unable to fully understand its actions when reviewing its repairs records. This would have meant it was unable to provide meaningful updates or responses to the resident, as shown in its complaint responses. The landlord should reflect on its record keeping and lack of oversight of the repairs in this case. This includes the importance of keeping accurate and detailed records.

Communication

29. The level of communication from the landlord was not helpful in this case. It was not clear if the landlord’s internal communication and lack of oversight contributed to this. The landlord could reflect on how better to communicate and have oversight for cases involving multiple repairs and stakeholders, such as appointing single points of contact.

Policies

30. It is positive to see that since this report the landlord has updated some of its policies and guidance on the website to reflect its obligations in responding to category 1 and 2 hazards. This includes its obligations under Awaab’s Law which came into effect on 27 October 2025. Awaab’s Law was created to protect residents from serious health risks such as damp and mould. The landlord should reflect on the failures in this case and the importance of early identification of hazards and the risks posed to households, if left unresolved.