Birmingham City Council (202515575)

Decision
Case ID	202515575
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Birmingham City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	17 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house with her 2 children. She moved to the propertyviamutual exchange to flee domestic abuse. The landlord is aware of the household vulnerabilities. She has multiple sclerosisand sometimes uses a wheelchair. Both children have developed respiratory problems since moving to the property. Shecomplained that the landlord had declined her request for new windows and that it failed to resolve the damp and mould issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for new windows.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s
   1. Request for new windows.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We found the landlord:
   1. Did not adequately consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in its decision not to replace her windows and it did not carry out a risk assessment. It revised its decision to replace her windows and offered her compensation outside of its complaints process and after our investigation started.
   2. Delayed in completing required damp works. It developed a plan of works and offered compensation outside of its complaints process and after our investigation started.
   3. Did not follow its complaint handling policy timescales.

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 a member of the landlord’s executive team. 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 19 January 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £2,175 made up as follows £2,125 it offered following its final response, if not already paid £50 to recognise its complaint handling failings This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 19 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that as the damp survey was completed in the summer the landlord post inspects in 6 weeks’ time to ensure the remedies have resolved the problem.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 June 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said the property was in poor repair. Both her children now had asthma and need inhalers since moving in. She raised concerns about her windows’ condition and safety. They were not standard design: small top openers, no trickle vents, and poor ventilation. The panes could be removed from outside. She was a victim of domestic abuse and said this put her at risk. She added there were no planned works for window replacement, yet other residents in her road were having theirs renewed.
13 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said her road was not scheduled for window replacement. When added to the programme, she would receive a letter. In the meantime, she should report any issues to the repairs team. If windows were beyond repair, it could escalate to its capital team for review.
19 and 23 June 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she had seen letters confirming other residents’ window replacements. She repeated her concerns about the windows and that operatives struggled to find parts. She outlined her safety concerns and said that wherever she lives, police must assess her security. Due to screens on her windows to stop them being smashed, she could not break them in the event of a fire. She was at risk as threats had been made and break ins were easy as the windows could be removed externally. She said it completed a damp and mould survey, but only a mould wash was completed. Other works were outstanding. She explained this was affecting her children’s asthma and that she was immunocompromised.
17 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said planned window replacement for the resident’s road would be between 2031 and 2035. This meant the earliest it could be scheduled was 2026. It attended on 10 June 2025 to treat all mould affected areas. It applied anti-mould paint to the bedroom window reveal. A post-inspection on 7 July 2025 led to the installation of a PIV and orders to renew all window gaskets. It said it attended to all works within its policy timeframe.
1 October 2025	Following its final response, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had completed a further investigation and wanted to apologise for its handling of her complaint. It said it had not completed repairs in time and had not delivered services in line with its service standards, policies and procedures. It offered compensation of £1,125 comprising: £500 for ongoing damp and mould £300 for the need for windows and doors to be upgraded £200 for stress and inconvenience £125 for vulnerabilities (safety of children)
17 October 2025	The landlord attended the resident’s property with contractors. Its follow up email confirmed it would draft a plan of works. It had added her property to the window replacement programme for 2025, with completion assured by April 2026. It apologised for not advising her to submit a compensation claim for loss and damage to her belongings. It acknowledged she would not have kept items or receipts for new purchases. In recognition, it offered a further £1,000 reimbursement for her losses. This brought its total compensation offer to £2,125.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response and asked us to investigate. She wanted the damp and mould resolved and her windows replaced.

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	Request for window replacement
Finding	Maladministration

6. The landlord’s repairs policy states its position is to repair windows rather than replace them. Replacement is part of its planned programme unless repair is uneconomical. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the professional opinion of its surveyors and contractors as to whether the windows required replacement or repair. That said, given the household vulnerabilities and presence of damp and mould, it should have considered these factors when making its decision.
7. The landlord was aware of the risks to the resident and that multiple support agencies were involved. She had flagged that the non-standard window design combined with police-fitted safety measures, posed safety risks to her and her family.
8. The landlord’s complaint responses lacked empathy and itdid not demonstrate that it considered the household vulnerabilities. It alsofailed to consider completing a risk assessment.
9. Since its final response, in October 2025, the landlord has revised its position and agreed to replace the windows by the end of the financial year. While it provided no explanation for its change in decision, the resident welcomed it. It would have been helpful to have explained its reasons. It has also failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint.
10. The landlord also offered compensation of £300 for the need for the windows and doors to be upgraded. It also offered £200 for stress and inconvenience but did not specify if this related to the windows or other complaint elements.  It did not make its offer of compensation until we accepted the case for investigation. Our outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be considered under such circumstances. This is particularly the case where it has not demonstrated specific learning points to ensure that similar failings do not occur in future. However, the amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance where a failure has adversely affected the resident. As such, we have not ordered any further compensation.
11. The resident told us that following the landlord’s review she finally felt listened to and the officer allocated to put things right has been “outstanding”. This is positive in repairing the landlord and resident relationship, but something it could have achieved sooner.

Complaint	Reports of damp and mould.
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

12. The resident told us that living with the damp and mould had a detrimental effect on her families health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a claim via the courts. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

13. The landlord’s repairs policy commits to the risk-based approach of the Housing Health & Safety Rating System (HHSRS) in identifying hazards in its properties. In response to reports, its policy states it will attend within 14 days to assess the need for further action. It treated the mould in the resident’s property the day after it was reported, but it did not send an operative to further assess the cause as its policy requires.
14. Government guidance requires a post-inspection 6 weeks after treatment. If damp and mould return, further investigation should follow. The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed it post-inspected 18 days later on 26 June 2025. It said this inspection identified further intervention was needed which resulted in it installing a PIV unit on 3 July 2025. It also raised an order to renew the rubber gaskets on all the windows in the property, but there was no evidence this had been progressed.
15. The resident said the inspection identified the need for an additional radiator upstairs and a structural fault with her extension. She said the damp and mould returned because these issues were not addressed. Its final response determined its actionshad been appropriate and timely.
16. The landlord’s damp survey identified cracking to the cement outside the back door causing water ingress. Its remedy was to fit a door threshold externally to encourage run off and prevent water running back to the wall.Better communication with the resident could have alleviated her concerns about structural issues with her extension.The radiator and door threshold were fitted the week commencing 1 December 2025. While its attendance to inspect her reports of damp and mould were timely, some of its remedial work was not.
17. In a further review of the complaint on 1 October 2025, the landlord changed its position.  It apologised for its handling of her damp and mould complaint. It acknowledged it had not provided services in line with its standards, policies and procedures. While we commend it for acknowledging its failings and trying to put things right, it could have achieved this sooner within its complaint handling process.
18. To recognise its failures and the impact on her family, the landlord offered £625 compensation: £500 for the ongoing damp and mould, and £125 for not recognising household vulnerabilities.
19. Again, the landlord did not make its offer before our investigation commenced, so we cannot consider its offer as reasonable redress. However, its offer was within the range of awards recommended in our remedies guidance for failings that had a significant effect on a resident. As such, we have not ordered any further compensation.
20. The landlord also recognised that its delay in advising her she could submit a claim for her damaged belongings to its insurer had likely hindered her ability to successfully do so. Its offer of £1,000 to compensate her for those losses was fair and reasonable.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

21. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to Stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively from the date of acknowledgement. Any extensions to this must be no more than 10 and 20 working days without good reason. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
22. The landlord was late in acknowledging the resident’s complaint by 1 working day. It responded at stage 1 within its complaint policy timescale.
23. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request on the day of receipt. However, its explanation of when it would respond was confusing. It said it would triage this within 5 working days and then respond within 20 working days. It was unclear whether it meant its triage process of 5 working days was the same as acknowledging the complaint within 5 working days. If it acknowledged the complaint escalation on the day of receipt, 19 June 2025, then its response should have been 20 working days from then.

Learning

24. The landlord’s information on timescales for its complaint handling needs to be made clearer to its complaint handling staff.
25. The landlord did not explain the factors that led it its change in decision regarding the windows. It should review this case to identify learning points and prevent similar failings in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. We did not find any record keeping failures in our investigation.

Communication

27. We found a minor communication failing with the landlord adequately explaining the causes of the damp and mould. However, the resident has told us that she has difficulty obtaining updates or responses from technical staff once they have attended to inspect.