Bolton at Home Limited (202425915)

Decision
Case ID	202425915
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bolton at Home Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	15 December 2025

Background

The resident lives at the property with his partner and child. His partner represents him in this complaint. We will refer to them both as ‘the resident’. In 2023 he reported damp and mould at the property. The landlord inspected the property in January 2024 and raised some repairs to deal with the issue. The resident provided a letter from their doctor supporting a move to alternative accommodation. The resident was concerned about how damp and mould and asbestos found at the property might affect the respiratory health of their child. The landlord completed some works in line with the inspection recommendations but the resident remained unhappy with its response and complained to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Reports about asbestos at the property.
3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Service failure in its handling of reports about damp and mould.
2. No maladministration in its response to reports about asbestos.
3. The landlord provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling failings.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

The landlord responded reasonably to some but not all of the issues raised by the resident, leaving the complaint only partly resolved.

Asbestos reports

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos in the property was in line with its policy.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided reasonable redress for its failure to keep to its policy timeframes in complaint handling.

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	Compensation order In light of the failings found in this report, the landlord must pay the resident £500 (inclusive of the £300 already offered, if not already paid), for the impact caused by acknowledged delays in responding to damp and mould reports. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. If not already paid, it must also pay the £100 offered for complaint handling failures.	No later than 12 January 2026
2	Specific action order If the landlord has not already referred the resident to its insurance team regarding their claim for damages to personal belongings, it must do so by the due date.	No later than 12 January 2026
3	Specific action order The landlord must respond to the resident’s concerns about a slug and woodlice issue. It should consider and respond to her claim that it is connected to damp and mould at the property, explaining whether it believes it has a responsibility for the problem or not and setting out what the resident’s options are.	No later than 12 January 2026.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 July 2024	The resident complained about damp and mould to his MP on 5 July 2024, who forwarded the complaint to the landlord on this date. They said: The property was in disrepair and was uninhabitable, because of mould and “unlabelled asbestos”. He was worried as he understood his child was susceptible to respiratory infections. The landlord had refused to help him move. He had waited over a year for mould treatment and had to dispose of furniture and sleep in the living room since January 2024.
31 July 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
14 August 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response, where it: Outlined the works it had completed and/or planned to complete. Apologised it had failed to raise the works within its policy timescales. Explained why the family’s circumstances did not meet the threshold for a management move. Said its damp team said the “damp conditions were not considered to be serious” and the resident had not been told to dispose of furniture or sleep in the [living room]. Said the asbestos in the property was not a danger if not moved. It offered compensation of £200, comprised of: £50 for failing to meet its 21-day timescale for attending to works following a damp inspection. £50 for its failure to communicate about its delay with them. £100 for delays in attending to the mould/wash treatment.
6 September 2024	The resident asked to escalate the complaint. He said the landlord had failed to recognise certain aspects of their complaint, such as his reports about slugs and woodlice invading the property because of the repair issues. He had been advised to sleep in his living room by his doctor and contractors had marked jobs as being complete incorrectly. He also raised concerns about the planned installation of some windows that he thought would escalate the problem.
4 November 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. In summary it said that inspections at the property had determined it was dry. However, it had found high humidity levels and completed works to help with that. It set out some outstanding jobs. It said the windows and panels installed complied with building regulations. It offered a further £100 for delays and £100 for delays in complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident raised his complaint with us because he said: The property still had an issue with mould with woodlice and slugs. His child had breathing issues. He still had concerns about the landlord’s response to the asbestos. The level of compensation offered was only for delays in communication rather than having to deal with the issues. The property was unsuitable and he wanted to be moved. The landlord’s installation of new windows had been poor.

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	Damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

The resident told us that the issues at the property caused health issues for the family, particularly for his child, who had a rare condition and considered susceptible to respiratory infections. We are unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts, it will not be considered in this report.
We may not consider complaints which, in our view, concern matters that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The resident has complained about the landlord’s response to his complaint that his ie overcrowded in the property and should be moved on a priority basis. This is matter which is more appropriate for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to investigate.
The resident has raised further or new complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaint about the poor installation of windows. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.

What we have investigated

The resident did not consider the landlord’s stage 1 response adequately covered his complaint or sufficiently acknowledged the delays he had been impacted by. It acknowledged it had delayed in responding to his reports of damp and mould and apologised for not raising works immediately following its January 2024 inspection. It arranged further appointments to meet its commitments and offered £200 compensation, which the resident did not consider proportionately reflected the distress and inconvenience caused.
At stage 2 of its process, the landlord responded appropriately to most of the points raised by the resident. For example, it said it had understood his first report of damp and mould was in November, not April 2023 but invited him to provide evidence to contradict that. It explained that he did not meet its threshold for a management move but directed him to the local authority to investigate options. We note that it also arranged a further mould wash in October 2024.
The landlord also further acknowledged it had failed to meet its repair timeframes (taking well beyond, for example, its timeframe of 21 working days to attend to works after its January 2024 damp and mould inspection). Its increased compensation of £300 along with its commitment to improve its approach to damp and mould reports (by starting a new damp and mould team), was, on the face of it, reasonable. It follows the guidance set out in our remedies guidance for service failure of this scale and nature.
However, in its complaint responses the landlord failed to acknowledge or reasonably address some aspects of the complaint:
1. The landlord dismissed the resident’s actions, stating the damp was “not considered serious” and noting it had not advised them to sleep in the lounge or discard mould-damaged furniture. This response lacked empathy and ignored the January 2024 surveyor’s findings that there had been mould in most rooms, contradicting its “zero-tolerance” policy.
2. While the landlord had said its July 2024 survey had not indicated any issues with the condition of the property, its stage 2 response noted it had found high humidity levels in each of the rooms. It acknowledged that it raised repairs to help manage this. However, the resident considered some works, such as a job to replaster walls, were in fact jobs it had previously failed to complete. He also said this showed that the problems had not been resolved. The landlord did not address this point.
3. The resident reported slugs and woodlice, believing they were linked to damp and mould. While the evidence does not confirm a connection, the landlord ignored this issue, breaching the Complaint Handling Code requirement to address all complaint elements.
4. Overall, while the landlord addressed some of the resident’s complaint points and acknowledged its failings to respond in a timely manner or in line with its policy, it did not fully address all his concerns, leaving aspects of the complaint unresolved. As such, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the impact the issues at the property had on the family.

Complaint	Handling of asbestos reports
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s asbestos policy says that it will inform all new or transferring occupants of the location and risk assessment of any asbestos within the property. It says it will do this “when requested by the [resident]”. We have not seen evidence that the resident asked for this information at the start of the tenancy.
In the resident’s complaint, they said that when asbestos had been identified by a workmen, the landlord had returned to board over it. This is an indication that the landlord was responsive to their concerns.
The discovery caused the resident understandable concern but the landlord’s response, that the asbestos at the property did not represent a danger to the resident, unless moved, was appropriate to the situation and in line with the circumstances shown by the evidence.
To provide the resident with extra reassurance and because they were concerned about any effects on their child, it could have also completed a risk assessment nearer the time of their complaint. However, more recently, it has done so and confirmed that the asbestos in the property is of low risk.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process which is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It says the resident should receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord was 3 working days late in responding at stage 1 and 21 working days late responding at stage 2. However, it apologised for its delays and offered £100 compensation, which was a reasonable acknowledgement of any distress caused by its delays.

Learning

The records show the landlord lost track of what repairs had or had not been completed and/or the reasons for a failure to complete repairs on occasion. It had to go back to its contractors to provide updates and explanations. It might consider reviewing the learning in our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance, repairing trust to help build trust with the resident again.