From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Bristol City Council (202421459)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421459

Bristol City Council

27 August 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Complaint handling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom house, where he lives with his wife and 5 children. The landlord, a local council, owns the property. The landlord has not demonstrated how it has recorded the household health vulnerabilities. However, the resident says 3 family members have asthma.
  2. Evidence shows the resident reported the presence of damp and mould in or around October 2022 and October 2023. The landlord raised mould washes following property inspections. In March 2024, the resident reported a recurring issue.
  3. On 5 August 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. He described “persistent fungus and mould” in the property. And he said he had experienced the issue since the start of his tenancy, in 2016. The resident also said the property condition was affecting the health of vulnerable household members.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 6 August 2024. And it sent its stage 1 response on 15 August 2024. The landlord apologised for a delay to complete work. And it arranged for a surveyor to attend as a matter of urgency the next day, 16 August 2024. However, the landlord’s inspection did not take place until 26 September 2024. It recorded the need to clean and treat the resident’s bathroom, install 3 new extractor fans, replace a rotten bath panel, and inspect the bathroom flooring.
  5. On 22 January 2025 the resident escalated his complaint. On 27 January 2025 we wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf as it had not acknowledged his request. While the resident accepted the landlord had completed some remedial work, he said mould issues remained.
  6. On 6 March 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised. It acknowledged there had been unreasonable delays between the resident’s original report and its first attendance. However, it said it had found no record of him telling it that work had been unsuccessful. It arranged a new inspection. And said once it completed any work required, the resident should contact it again, so it could consider the appropriateness of financial redress.
  7. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. He said he felt neglected by the landlord and mould had spread through other rooms in the property. He considered the landlord should compensate him for its handling of the repair and the effects on the health of household members.
  8. In May and June 2025 we attempted to obtain evidence from the landlord. We issued a complaint handling failure order (CHFO) in July 2025 as it did not provide what we asked for. We made 2 further attempts to request additional information in August 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to either. In contact with the resident in August 2025, he said the landlord’s remedial work remained incomplete and work done so far had been to a poor standard.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the landlord’s actions affected the health of the household members with asthma. He described his child’s need for medical attention, including a visit to hospital. He also said damp and mould in the property made their conditions worse their conditions.
  2. We are unable to say what caused an illness or injury. Such matters require a decision by a court or through an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages.
  3. In contact with us in April 2025, the resident referred to a toilet leak caused by the landlord working on other issues. While we recognise the distress new complaints can cause, the toilet leak did not form part of the complaint he brought to us.
  4. We encourage residents to raise complaints to their landlords at the time the events happened. We can only consider matters that have completed the landlord’s complaints process. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concern.
  5. The resident also said the mould had been present since 2016. However, he did not bring his complaint to us until 2025.
  6. The longer the time between the incidents complained of and our investigation, the less likely we are to make meaningful findings. Evidence might no longer be available and memories might not be reliable. It is reasonable that our investigation considers events 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint in August 2024. Any reference to other events will be to provide context only.

Damp and mould in the property

  1. The landlord sent us limited evidence in relation to its current policies, procedures, or self-assessments. This has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events against the expectations of its processes.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy, effective as of May 2021, states damp and mould problems can be hard to diagnose. As such, the landlord says it will normally send a surveyor first to inspect the property. And it will complete repairs where a defect of the home causes the damp and mould. It also says it will provide advice and assistance where other factors are the cause.
  3. While we have identified some historical inspections and mould washes, we have identified no record of the landlord providing the resident with advice.
  4. The landlord’s records show it inspected and raised work orders in and around 2022 and 2023. However, there is no explanation or an assessment of why the issue reoccurred. Nor any evidence of an action plan to monitor.
  5. The landlord’s repair records contain no completion date for a damp and mould pre inspection on 17 October 2023. It is therefore unclear what the landlord did to remedy the resident’s concerns at this time. Nor whether it undertook further investigations. This demonstrates a record keeping failure and ineffective monitoring of a potential hazard.
  6. On 25 March 2024 and 13 April 2024 the resident reported problems with damp and mould online. He received automated responses from the landlord, which promised contact within 5 days. We have been unable to identify the landlord’s completion of these follow up calls. This did not demonstrate the landlord delivered on its promise to follow up on the resident’s reports. Nor did it evidence effective record keeping of this matter.
  7. Between 8 April to 16 May 2024 the evidence shows the resident repeated his concerns. The landlord recorded the issue as ongoing, acknowledged receipt of 3 damp and mould reports within a year, and raised an inspection. The landlord also recorded how the resident’s 5 year old child had needed hospital treatment. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the landlord was very much on notice regarding the resident’s property concerns.
  8. The landlord’s records show on 25 April 2024 it arranged a 21 day routine repair to inspect the property. Given it had acknowledged the resident’s 3 reports and comments about his child’s health, it is unclear why the landlord did not give this greater priority.
  9. Evidence shows between April to September 2024 the landlord failed to progress work at the resident’s property. While there is suggestion the resident missed appointments, he disputes this. He states the landlord or its contractors failed to communicate with him about appointments and or failed to keep to them. This does not demonstrate the landlord effectively monitored its contractors progress or the outcome of the work.
  10. The landlords internal records on 25 September 2024 supports the resident’s position regarding poor communication and delays. The landlord took responsibility for the identified remedial work due to “non-attendance by others.” We take this to mean its contractors. However, the evidence shows the resident continued to report recurring mould during early 2025. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the works completed by the landlord did not provide a lasting remedy.
  11. While there is evidence an inspection and some work took place, the landlord’s records did not mark the outstanding work complete until 11 June 2025. This was not appropriate and more than a year after the resident’s reports.
  12. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
    1. Adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
    2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
    3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
    4. Identify when it should use an independent, mutually agreed, and suitably qualified surveyor. This includes sharing the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
  13. In this case there is evidence of delays, poor communication, and ineffective monitoring of the resident’s repair progress. Had the landlord adopted the approach set out in the Ombudsman’s recommendations, it might have avoided the service failings identified in this report.
  14. Our determinations should also recognise the fact that the distress caused to an individual resident is unique to them. Not all residents will experience the same distress in response to the same instance of maladministration. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability (‘aggravating factors’). Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
  15. Although the landlord took some action, this was not sufficient mitigation for the identified delays. Nor the ineffective monitoring and communication. While there is no evidence the resident lost use of any amenities, the time taken to progress matters was unreasonable. As such, the resident was without a lasting remedy for at least 1 year. Furthermore, the resident informed the landlord of health vulnerabilities within the household. However, we have not seen how the landlord considered this information.
  16. Based on our findings, we find maladministration. We order the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation. We have the approximate period of 12 months’ in which the repair remained incomplete. And we have also considered the aggravating factors. This is consistent with our remedies guide where the landlord’s failures have adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 6 August 2025, within 1 working day. This was consistent with the expectations of the Code.
  3. That said, The Code requires member landlords to set out their understanding of the resident’s complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. The landlord’s acknowledgement did not do this.
  4. Also, in an email sent by the landlord to the resident, it considered a stage 1 response due by 27 August 2025. Given the date of the resident’s complaint, the landlord should have informed the resident its response would be by 26 August 2025.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 15 August 2025. This was within the expected response time. However, the response incorrectly defined the resident’s mould complaint as a repair. Furthermore, it simply apologised and said it would arrange an inspection. It identified no learning and offered no explanation of how it would monitor matters to ensure similar failures did not happen again. This was not consistent with the expectations of the Code.
  6. On 27 January 2025 the resident asked for our help to escalate his complaint. He said the landlord had not acknowledged his request. While we note the resident had experienced poor communication regarding reported repairs, he made his escalation request on 22 January 2025. Therefore, the landlord had until 29 January 2025 to acknowledge his request. We cannot therefore determine any failure by the landlord at this stage.
  7. We note the landlord’s stage 1 response informed the resident to escalate the complaint within 20 working days. While the Code does not specifically prevent landlord’s from stating timeframes, the time limit should be reasonable. It should also allow residents sufficient time to assess if the landlord’s actions have provided a lasting remedy. Furthermore, the landlord should apply discretion and not use these timeframes too rigidly. It should consider individual circumstances as there may be valid reasons why a resident delays their request.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 2 response within the expected 20 working days. Although it upheld the resident’s complaint, it advised him to contact it again to discuss compensation once it had completed repairs.
  9. Having admitted failings, it is unclear why the landlord did not take responsibility for this matter. It had the opportunity to use its complaints process effectively to rebuild the resident’s confidence in its services. Simply handing the responsibility for communication and follow up to the resident was unreasonable. This did not demonstrate a landlord who gave due regard to the concerns presented to it.
  10. As of August 2025, the resident says work remains ongoing and incomplete. He also says the landlord has not discuss its handling of his complaint any further. Given a further 5 months have passed, this does not demonstrate a landlord who is effectively monitoring the outcome of the complaint brought to it.
  11. Based on our findings, we find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. There has been a need for our involvement, an inconsistent application of the Code, a failure to monitor the outcome of the resident’s complaint, and no offer of redress.
  12. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation. This is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord has failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Record keeping

  1. As written within this report, there has been evidence of poor record keeping. This led to the landlord delivering delayed repairs, poor communication, and failures to meet its obligations to us as a member landlord. It was not appropriate that it was necessary for us to issue a CHFO. Furthermore, the landlord did not:
    1. Respond to our requests for information in August 2025.
    2. Provide copies of its relevant policies and procedures used to respond to the resident’s complaint.
    3. Demonstrate effective monitoring of its contractors performance to achieve completion of the necessary remedial work.
    4. Demonstrate effective communication regarding planned work, delays, or how it would provide a lasting remedy for the recurring issues.
    5. Demonstrate monitoring of the resident’s complaint.
  2. Without good knowledge and information management (KIM) a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the residents safe now and in the future. The landlord did not show it effectively monitored the resident’s concerns. Nor that it considered the effects the reported situations were having on his household. This was not appropriate and did nothing to foster a positive landlord and resident relationship.
  3. Based on the evidence and findings of this investigation, we find maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation. This is made up of:
      1. £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
      2. £150 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange or demonstrate that a suitably qualified person has completed a further property inspection since the stage 2 final response in March 2025. The evidence must include:
      1. The landlord’s findings, recommendations, and details of any issues which requires further monitoring.
      2. A schedule for any outstanding work.
    2. Consider the failings identified and complete a review into its handling of the resident’s reports. The landlord should identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
      1. Its poor communication and failure to monitor or follow up.
      2. The lack of proactive communication about delays.
      3. Co-ordination and monitoring of its contractors.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend the landlord:
    1. Contacts the resident to discuss his reports of other complaints.
    2. Contacts the resident to ensure its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the current household circumstances.
    3. Considers how it responds to escalation requests made outside of its prescribed timescale.