Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Bromford Housing Group Limited (202223880)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223880

Bromford Housing Group Limited

7 May 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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, a Housing Association. She lives in a 3-bedroom house with her partner and 7 children.
  2. The resident made several reports of damp and mould at her property from 2015 onwards. The most recent report was made in April 2022. On 7 November 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint.
  3. The landlord responded on 18 November 2022 at stage 1 of its complaint process. It set out the actions that it had taken between April and November 2022 but acknowledged that there had been delays. The landlord said that it would watch the case until all work was completed and then offer some compensation.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 December 2022. This was acknowledged on 25 January 2023. The landlord explained that it would keep the stage 2 complaint open until the conclusion of all investigation and work into the damp issue. It issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 July 2024, it said:
    1. after the stage 1 complaint response little action was taken until the resident escalated her complaint
    2. the complaint was not escalated in line with its complaint policy
    3. it did not act soon enough to resolve the damp and mould issues
    4. delays and communication failings were not acceptable
    5. it would offer compensation of £6,130, broken down as:
      1. £2,700 for the delays in dealing with the damp and mould issue over 108 months
      2. £1,350 for the distress and inconvenience caused
      3. £1,130 for damaged items
      4. £500 for the lack of clear communication and missed appointments
      5. £425 for the failure to provide a stage 2 complaint response which was 17 months overdue
      6. £25 for the failure to escalate the complaint when requested
  5. The resident accepted this offer of compensation on 15 July 2024. However, on 16 August 2024 she told the landlord that the damp issues in her kitchen had returned.
  6. The stage 2 complaint was reopened on 28 October 2024, and the complaint remains open. Further works were planned to take place at the resident’s property but in February 2025 the works were suspended. This was because the resident did not want the works to take place due to the disruption and the possibility of having to move to temporary accommodation for up to 3 weeks. A plan was put in place that the resident would report any black mould so that the landlord could treat this.
  7. The resident was approved for a management move and confirmed she had been awarded the highest band to bid for other properties. The resident agreed that the best way forward was for her to move properties which would allow the landlord to complete further works before letting the property again.
  8. On 19 March 2025 the landlord held an internal meeting to discuss the case. It was decided that a surveyor would attend the property to see if the moisture levels had reduced since its last visit. If the moisture levels had not reduced, then it was likely recommended works would need to take place. A surveyor was due to visit the resident’s property on 4 April 2025.
  9. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman initially on 17 January 2023, and then on 30 September 2024. She asked that the stage 2 compensation be reviewed due to the ongoing issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of complaint

  1. It is noted that the resident has a long history of reporting damp and mould to the landlord dating back to 2015. However, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s most recent reports from April 2022 onwards which were dealt with as part of the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because residents would be expected to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner, usually within 12 months of the incident occurring. This is to give the landlord a fair opportunity to investigate the complaint and reach an informed conclusion at the time.
  2. We have decided that it is fair to consider the actions of the landlord after it issued its stage 2 complaint response in July 2024. This is because the landlord re-opened its complaint at stage 2 in October 2024, and it set out its position at this time. It confirmed further works would take place and it would address the damp issue. While the landlord did not offer a further, written stage 2 complaint response, it did have the opportunity to do so. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has had a fair opportunity to consider its actions post stage 2 and put things right.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy from the time does not provide specific timescales. Instead, it says response timescales are established by the availability of the resident and/or its resources, risk, and inconvenience, or by individual merit, priority, and programming. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) says the landlord must repair any issues in the property they rent out. It should do these repairs within a “reasonable” time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair.
  2. The landlord’s initial actions following the resident’s reports that her windows could be contributing to damp in her home were reasonable. It arranged for an engineer to assess the issue on 14 April 2022, within 10 days of the resident’s report, and recorded that details would be sent for a stock condition survey.
  3. Following this assessment, the resident chased for an update on 7 June 2022 before contacting her MP about the issue in September 2022. It was not until receiving communication from the MP on 20 September 2022, that the landlord took any further action in the resident’s case.
  4. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, says that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. It recommended that landlords take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in finding and addressing the causes of damp and mould and clearly communicate to residents about its actions. However, the landlord’s actions did not align with these recommendations. It did not take any action for 5 months after the resident’s report in April 2022. This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience, which was highlighted by her communication to her MP.
  5. An inspection took place on 3 October 2022 which recommended further investigative work and repairs related to the resident’s windows, doors, loft insulation, and drainage. However, the landlord did not follow up these recommendations or tell the resident what it would be doing. Instead, it was left to the resident to chase the landlord on 7 November 2022 when she raised a complaint about the lack of action.
  6. At the time of her complaint, it had been 142 working days since her report of damp issues in April 2022. The landlord showed a lack of urgency to investigate the issues and was not proactive in managing the case or communicating with the resident. These actions contributed to the heightened impact on the resident which she explained in her complaint was affecting her “emotionally, physically and financially”.
  7. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process on 18 November 2022. It acknowledged the delays, failure to act and poor communication. It said that it would monitor the case until all work was completed and then review a compensation award for the impact to the resident. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action following the stage 1 complaint response to ensure the works were completed.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 December 2022 as there had been a lack of progress and updates since the stage 1 complaint response. The landlord did not acknowledge this escalation until 25 January 2023. This meant the case had not progressed for a further 45 working days. In total the resident had waited 195 working days and was no further forward. The impact of these delays was compounded by the lack of communication with the resident caused further distress and inconvenience.
  9. Once the complaint was escalated the landlord appointed a specific person to manage the complaint and outstanding work for the resident. The resident agreed to delay the stage 2 complaint response until the full work had been concluded. The appointment of a specific person to manage the resident’s case was a positive step. This made it easier for the resident to communicate with the landlord and reassured her that the issues were being dealt with.
  10. On 25 January 2023, the landlord contacted a drainage contractor to complete outstanding works, which were finished on 2 February 2023. The landlord also moved up a roofing inspection from 1 March 2023 to 13 February 2023. After the inspection, jobs were scheduled to install new loft insulation and renew a parting wall on 10 and 13 March 2023.
  11. Additionally, the landlord checked with its Home Investment team about referrals. On 27 January 2023, it was confirmed that the resident’s window replacement had been approved and prioritised in the 2023/2024 programme. The resident was informed that they would receive an update once a timescale was available.
  12. This demonstrates that once a specific point of contact was managing the case, the landlord became more proactive. It followed up with contractors and prioritised work. The landlord also kept the resident informed, aligning with its repairs policy to provide a high-quality, customer-focused service.
  13. The landlord also contacted its Localities team to ask them to consider approving a management move for the resident based on her living situation. It also asked for the team to prepare a suitable property if the resident had to be temporarily moved while any works were ongoing. This shows that the landlord was considering the resident’s individual circumstances and was exploring alternative options if the damp and mould issue could not be resolved. This was a suitable consideration that aligned with its policy to consider a management move where there may be an “overriding urgent housing need to allocate an alternative home to existing customers”.
  14. On 9 February 2023 the landlord conducted an inspection of the resident’s property to fully assess all work that was needed. The inspection found that work to try to resolve the damp was required to the bathroom, kitchen, lounge, loft, and 2 of 3 bedrooms. Additionally, some external work was needed. However, before any further work could be scheduled the resident reported she had noticed more damp in her home. The landlord arranged for a further inspection by the surveyor on 17 February 2023.
  15. Following the inspection, the repairs manager concluded that the resident would not need to move temporarily for the works to be completed. The surveyor’s report was received by the landlord on 22 February 2023. As part of its internal discussions the landlord sent a referral to its Home Investment team to consider replacing the kitchen. On 10 March 2023, the landlord updated the resident and confirmed that a new kitchen had been approved. The landlord told the resident that it would pass all work to a sub-contractor to deliver and that a quote had been requested.
  16. While there was a long delay between April 2022 and January 2023, once the landlord gave the case to a specific person the case progressed quickly over the 2 months between February and March 2023. The communication between the resident and landlord improved. Also, by sending a major works referral for the kitchen replacement, the landlord showed that it was considering the resident’s case by individual merit as set out in its repairs policy. It was also positive that the landlord updated the resident with timescales of when the works were likely to take place.
  17. The landlord visited the resident on 21 March 2023 to discuss the planned repair work. It arranged for a bouquet of flowers to be sent to the resident to acknowledge the inconvenience she had suffered up to that point. The landlord visited again on 13 and 25 April 2023 to keep the resident updated on the planned repair work. It was agreed that the work would take place between 19 and 24 May 2023.
  18. The work was planned to take place 79 working days after the complaint was escalated. This in line with repairs for complex work, which the landlord’s repair policy defined as “works that falls outside the usual scope of responsive repairs”. The resident was kept updated throughout this period and the landlord regularly visited the resident’s property to answer any questions about the planned work.
  19. There was a short delay in completing the works due to the potential presence of asbestos in the kitchen floor. The landlord managed the removal proactively, chasing the contractor at least five times between 27 May and 1 June 2023. The floor was removed on 2 June 2023, and on 8 June 2023, the resident confirmed she was happy with the works and pleased with her new kitchen. Although there was a delay, it was beyond the landlord’s control. Once informed about the asbestos risk, the landlord quickly found contractors to remove the floor so the work could be completed. The landlord’s actions were reasonable.
  20. After a post-inspection, jobs remained outstanding, including 2 for external drains. The drainage work was scheduled for 20 July 2023 but was not completed until 12 September 2023. This delay was due to the drainage contractor cancelling 4 appointments at short notice on 20 July, 1 August, 24 August, and 31 August 2023. The resident was told about these cancellations only on the day, and 3 times received no notice at all. This lack of communication and failure to complete repairs within a routine timescale was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, which emphasises treating residents with fairness and respect. The delays and poor communication caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
  21. On 13 June 2023, the resident told the landlord about damp on the chimney breast in the living room. The landlord asked a surveyor to inspect the damp, as earlier work in May and June 2023 had not fully resolved the issue. The inspection was initially scheduled for 15 August 2023, but the surveyor did not show up. It was rescheduled for 30 August 2023. The spotlight report from 2021 says that damp and mould should be a high priority. Given the landlord had known about the damp since April 2022 and had already tried to fix it, it would have been reasonable to have seen more urgency. The 2-month delay in arranging the survey was unreasonable, and the landlord’s failure to show up without notice added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  22. In addition to the above, on 18 August 2023 the resident reported snagging issues with the doors and windows. These issues were not resolved until 18 October 2023. The resident had to chase the landlord at least twice before a contractor returned to complete the work. The resident’s effort to follow up was avoidable. If the landlord had kept the resident informed and managed the snagging issues more effectively, it would have saved her time and trouble.
  23. The surveyor’s report about the damp on the chimney breast was sent to the landlord on 8 September 2023. It recommended inspecting the roof and chimney, and making repairs in the living room, bathroom, and loft. Although the work was considered low risk, the jobs were not arranged until 21 December 2023, and only after the resident chased the landlord on 6 November 2023.
  24. During this time, the resident’s main point of contact was off work, which led to poor case management. The landlord did not contact the resident until 28 November 2023, despite being chased. The 3-month delay booking the follow-up jobs and its poor communication was unreasonable. This continued to highlight the landlord’s lack of urgency in dealing with the damp issue and caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
  25. Three jobs were arranged, these were:
    1. 19 January 2024 – to treat mould in the living room and to carry out several works related to the chimney and chimney breast
    2. 23 January 2024 – to redecorate following the works on 19 January 2024
    3. 14 February 2024 – to inspect the resident’s roof using a cherry picker
  26. The landlord did not attend the job on 19 January 2024, leading the resident to chase for an update. The resident’s main point of contact had returned to work and promised to find out what happened. The landlord contacted its planning team 3 times before receiving a response on 6 February 2024. The response explained that all jobs were cancelled because the damp and mould team had raised them under different job numbers. The jobs were to be sent to subcontractors, but this had not yet been done.
  27. The landlord explained the situation to the resident on 12 February 2024 and promised to update once new repair dates were arranged. Despite the resident following up on 23 February 2024, the job was not given to subcontractors until April 2024. On 19 March 2024, the resident was told that a subcontractor would survey the property on 5 April 2024 to get quotes for the work.
  28. The 2021 spotlight report recommended a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, but the landlord’s actions did not match this. Poor communication and case management caused an unreasonable delay. It took 8 months from receiving the survey in September 2023 to make progress. The time taken caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  29. After the survey, the landlord chased the subcontractor for quotes on 8, 17, and 26 April 2024, and 10 May 2024. The resident was updated on 7 May 2024, and on 22 May 2024, the landlord confirmed it had approved the quotes and prioritised the work. On 3 June 2024, the resident was informed that all work would begin on 10 June 2024. The works were completed between 10 and 14 June 2024. During this period, the landlord was proactive in chasing the subcontractor and updating the resident. Although this added 2 more months to the timeline, it was beyond the landlord’s control as it was waiting for the contractor to confirm availability and access to materials.
  30. As the work began at the resident’s property, she contacted the landlord to say that she had seen silverfish in her kitchen cupboard and was worried this was a sign that damp was returning to this room. By this time the landlord had implemented a new damp and mould policy. The policy emphasised that it would adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and eliminate the issue through effective investigation.
  31. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the property on 18 June 2024 to assess the potential of damp returning in the kitchen. The same day an engineer conducted remedial works to fix a downpipe and expose 2 air bricks. The surveyor believed that this would resolve the issue of damp and committed to monitoring this over a few weeks to ensure a reduction in moisture levels. The steps taken by the landlord aligned with its new approach to damp and mould.
  32. The surveyor returned on 9 July 2024 and recorded that moisture levels were still excessive in the kitchen. Further remedial works and recommendations were made and sent to the landlord. It was positive that the landlord’s surveyor followed through with the commitment to check the moisture levels. This ensured that relevant works were raised promptly following the resident’s reports.
  33. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 July 2024. This was 17 months after the resident escalated her complaint and 27 months since her first report of damp in April 2022. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did recognise the failings of its service. It apologised for the time taken to complete repairs, the missed appointments, poor communication and distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord offered compensation totalling £6,130 which was broken down as follows:
    1. £2,700 for the delays in dealing with the damp and mould issue over 108 months
    2. £1,350 for the distress and inconvenience caused
    3. £1,130 for damaged items
    4. £500 for the lack of clear communication and missed appointments
    5. £425 for the failure to provide a stage 2 complaint response which was 17 months overdue
    6. £25 for the failure to escalate the complaint when requested
  34. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consult our guidance on remedies when considering the level of compensation. Where there have been serious failings that have had a long-term impact on a resident our guidance recommends payments of £1,000 or more is fair. If a failure has a significant impact on a resident a payment of between £600 to £1,000 would be fair.
  35. The landlord acknowledged that the long delay and the distress caused to the resident were serious failings. It considered not only the time taken since April 2022 but also that the resident had reported damp issues as far back as 2015. The landlord recognised that its poor communication significantly affected the resident’s experience. The compensation provided was in line with our guidance on remedies and appropriately addressed the landlord’s failings up to 12 July 2024.
  36. It was also positive that the landlord considered a discretionary payment to cover the alleged damages to the resident’s property. This saved the resident time and effort in making an insurance claim. The landlord recognised that a surveyor had visited the resident’s property and that a commitment was made to ensure that all issues were resolved following this visit. Its response also acknowledged that the time taken to provide its stage 2 complaint response was unreasonable. It said that it fell outside of its policy timeframes and provided suitable compensation to recognise this.
  37. However, part of a good complaint handling process is to ensure that there are learnings from the failings found. Continuous improvement using complaint information is important, but its actions after it issued its stage 2 complaint response highlighted a lack of learning.
  38. Following the inspection on 9 July 2024, no action was taken to complete the recommended work. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 August 2024 to chase for an update but was not contacted until 29 October 2024 when the stage 2 complaint was reopened. This was unreasonable and did not align with its new damp and mould policy which says that the landlord will ensure damp issues are treated with urgency and resolved in a timely manner.
  39. After the stage 2 complaint was reopened, the landlord told the resident that a new contractor would address damp issues in the kitchen. The contractor visited on 21 November 2024, and the landlord chased them for a quote on 9, 17 December, and 6 January 2025. The quote was provided on 28 January 2025. Despite keeping the resident updated, the landlord showed a lack of urgency. Six months had passed since the July 2024 inspection, yet the works were still not arranged. The landlord could not provide an explanation for this to the resident. This repeated failure was unreasonable especially given the history of the resident’s case.
  40. Between 10 and 21 February 2025, the landlord and resident discussed the scope of works. They decided to carry out small, non-disruptive works and delay larger ones until the resident could move out after a management move was approved. It was agreed that the resident would report any sign of black mould, and that the landlord would treat this immediately. It also agreed to contact the resident every 2 weeks to check the situation.
  41. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident every 2 weeks as agreed. Instead, on 19 March 2025, the landlord held a meeting saying that the case had stalled. It decided the surveyor should return to check moisture levels and, if necessary, it would conduct all recommended works. The surveyor was scheduled to visit on 4 April 2025.
  42. The decision to delay the works was reasonable and considered the resident’s individual circumstances. The resident said that she did not want more disruption due to the issues she had faced in the previous 2 years. Despite this agreement the landlord should have followed its communication plan to address any concerns the resident may have had or identify worsening of the damp and mould issues. The failure to follow through with actions was previously highlighted as a failing in its stage 2 complaint response. Repeating this failure was unfair to the resident and caused distress and inconvenience.
  43. We understand that finding the root cause of damp and mould issues can be complex. It can take several inspections and repairs before an issue is fully resolved. However, this highlights the need for a quick, efficient, and joined up approach when managing a case. When left, damp and mould issues can escalate quickly and cause significant distress to a resident.
  44. In this case, there are several significant failings by the landlord which have been highlighted in this report. It was positive that after the resident’s escalation of her complaint that the landlord appointed a specific person to deal with the case. There is evidence that this person did their best to proactively manage the case but faced frequent challenges from other internal departments and contractors.
  45. It is also good to see that the landlord has reviewed its response to reports of damp and mould against the recommendations in our spotlight report for damp and mould. It implemented a new process in March 2024 and now has a dedicated team to deal with these issues. However, the resident’s experience even since the implementation of this policy has been poor. After the stage 2 complaint response was issued the landlord repeated several of the failings it had found.
  46. We considered whether reasonable redress or severe maladministration would be fair in this case. If the landlord had resolved the issues and not repeated the failings found in stage 2, reasonable redress would have been appropriate. Conversely, if the landlord had not recognised its failings or provided fair compensation, severe maladministration would have been fair. However, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s actions to amount to maladministration. As despite addressing some issues in the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not learn from them and continued to repeat the same mistakes.
  47. As already explained, the actions taken in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to recognise the impact on the resident between April 2022 and July 2024 was fair. We understand that the resident accepted the offer of compensation from the landlord at this time.
  48. The resident has experienced further distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s actions since the stage 2 complaint response. The resident had to chase the landlord to act after the July 2024 survey. It took the landlord 6 months to arrange for a contractor to assess the damp reoccurrence. Given the case history, the resident was particularly worried that her new kitchen might become unusable. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident is still living with damp in her home and must monitor and report any black mould to the landlord. This ongoing inconvenience is due to the landlord’s failure to promptly resolve the damp issues.
  49. Our remedies guidance says that where there has been a failure that has had a significant impact on the resident a payment of between £600 to £1,000 is appropriate. Given the repeated failings, the fact that the issue has yet to be resolved after a prolonged period of time, and that the resident has had to chase the landlord about its actions following the stage 2 complaint response an additional payment of compensation totalling £900 is fair. This is to recognise the impact to the resident for its failings between July and February 2024 and is broken down as:
    1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the actions of the landlord
    2. £300 for the time and trouble taken by the resident in chasing the landlord in order to deal with the reoccurring damp issue
  50. We have considered if the landlord should review its approach to damp and mould. However, it has already provided evidence to the Service related to an earlier complaint investigation (202210934) which shows that it had reviewed its response to reports of damp and mould against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report. It completed a gap analysis in May 2023 and provided copies of its planning process and its draft interim condensation, damp, and mould policy. The landlord has now provided a copy of its finalised damp and mould policy from March 2024, which is due for review in the next few months. Therefore, an order for the landlord to complete a wider review of its approach to damp and mould has not been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within the next 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. write an apology to the resident in recognition of the failings and provide a copy to the Service
    2. pay compensation totalling £900 (in addition to the £6,130 already paid), broken down as:
      1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the actions of the landlord
      2. £300 for the time and trouble taken by the resident in chasing the landlord in order to deal with the reoccurring damp issue
  2. Within 6 weeks the landlord is also ordered to:
    1. provide a copy of the surveyor’s report to the resident if it has not already done so, and provide a copy to the Service following the visit on 4 April 2025 – the landlord should provide a copy of any schedule of work and a plan, with estimated timescales of when work should be completed to both the resident and the Service
    2. consider whether any further training is required for its staff that handle damp and mould and provide a copy of its considerations to the Service – giving emphasis on timescales and communication

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord consider its approach to dealing with stage 2 complaints. Specifically, its decision to delay providing a stage 2 complaint response until the resolution of an issue. It should consider the complaint handling code section 6.17 which says, “A complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.”