Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited (202448324)
Back to Top
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202448324 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
15 January 2026 |
Background
- The resident lived in a 2 bedroom flat with her 2 children and her tenancy began on 28 August 2018. Prior to the resident occupying the property, there was a flood in the flat. Between 2018 and 2024 she raised concerns about damp and mould issues within the property which were recurring regardless of the landlord’s actions. She raised several issues including concerns with the drainage. Due to the works needed to the property, following the resident’s complaint, the landlord agreed to temporarily move the resident from her property in May 2025. It offered 2 properties which it said she had declined. She raised another complaint about the temporary move. She moved permanently in December 2025 into a 3 bedroom property.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to concerns about:
- The condition of the property upon letting.
- Reports of damp, mould, water ingress, and repairs to the property.
- Refund for damaged items and excessive heating costs.
- The complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We found:
- The condition of the property upon letting is outside of our jurisdiction.
- There was a reasonable offer of redress offered around the reports of damp, mould, and water ingress.
- Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the refund for damaged items and excessive heating costs.
- Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Condition of property upon letting
- In the resident’s complaint in March 2025, she raised concerns about the landlord’s response to a flood upon letting the property to her in 2018. The resident was aware of the flooding in her property from the evidence as early as May 2020. She had opportunities to raise a complaint prior to March 2025 about this and did not do so. As such she did not raise her concerns as a complaint with the landlord within a reasonable timeframe.
Damp, mould, water ingress, and repairs
- There were failings we found which the landlord did not consider in its responses. We found concerns as it did not look to address the root cause of the issue promptly and employed repeated temporary fixes. Its communication with the resident was also poor. It did not show that it considered whether the property remained habitable and resolved the concerns promptly in line with its statutory responsibilities. It also did not show that it considered the vulnerabilities in the household.
- Despite this however, the landlord’s offer of redress during its internal complaints process was sufficient to recognise the impact on the resident by the failures we have identified in this report. It recognised the length of time the resident lived with the concerns in the property and was unable to use her living room. Its offer was proportionate to the level of failing over the length of time we considered in this investigation. It also falls within the level we award where there has been a substantial failing by a landlord to resolve issues over a significant period of time.
Refund for damage to belongings and excessive heating
- The landlord acted reasonably by asking the resident to provide a list of items she wanted reimbursement for. It later told the resident to claim through insurance due to the amount for the items she wished to claim for. It however could have provided this option to her sooner. The resident told the landlord that she had excessive heating bills due to the damp and mould. The landlord failed to proactively respond and address her concern around this and consider if it needed to refund the resident promptly.
Complaint handling
- The landlord delayed in providing its stage 2 response. It also did not appropriately address all of the resident’s concerns within its responses.
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:
|
No later than 12 February 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order
The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £300. This is for the inconvenience caused to the resident. We break this down as:
This must be paid directly to the resident, and the landlord must provide documentary evidence to support compliance. |
No later than 12 February 2026 |
|
3 |
Insurance order
If it has not already done so, it should refer the resident to its liability insurance to make a claim for the damage to her belongings. The landlord must provide evidence that it has done so. |
No later than 12 February 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
If it remains outstanding, pay the resident the £2,500 offered across its complaint responses. |
|
If the resident’s insurance claim was declined by the insurance company, due to delays in raising a claim, the landlord should consider compensating the resident for the damage to her belongings under its compensation policy. |
|
The landlord also asked the resident to provide copies of her heating bills to demonstrate her additional costs. It should follow up with the resident on this to see if she is able to provide the necessary bills. It should provide the resident with written details of exactly what she needs to provide it, to demonstrate the excess usage. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
10 March 2025 |
The resident complained that the landlord did not fix severe disrepair for 6 years, leaving parts of the property uninhabitable and causing distress. She said the flat had had flooding damage when she moved in, leading to persistent damp and mould. She requested it rehoused her. |
|
27 March 2025 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It acknowledged there were problems caused by a historic flood and damp in the property. It accepted that there were delays with repairs, and its communication was poor. This disrupted the resident’s tenancy and there had been damage to her belongings. It upheld her complaint, acknowledged the disruption and damage, and awarded her compensation of £2,000. It broke this down as:
To resolve the concerns with the resident’s property the landlord said it would:
It said it could not comment on her request for housing other than making the information available which would show the length of time taken to complete repairs plus the extent of her loss and damages. It asked her to prepare a list of items she wanted to replace, with costs to allow it to review or reimburse her. |
|
8 April 2025 |
The resident escalated the complaint, citing lack of a clear repair schedule, no reimbursement for heating costs, unclear compensation timeframe, and omission of some areas from the repair plan. She also sought reimbursement for temporary repairs and further damaged belongings. |
|
20 May 2025 |
The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised for its poor handling of the situation. It acknowledged the delays, omissions of areas from its original plan, and inadequate communication. It also acknowledged its failure to provide a clear timeline for works and failure to reimburse her extra heating costs. To put things right the landlord promised to:
It offered a further £500 compensation which it broke down as:
This took its total offer to £2,500. It said it had learned to be more proactive and supporting with its communication, agree a proper scope of work, and set reasonable timescales for completion of works. It also said it had learned to take residents’ concerns seriously and investigate them thoroughly and promptly. It provided a schedule of works with proposed dates for completion of works. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident contacted us between 27 February 2025 and August 2025. She explained the situation to us and the impact on her family’s health. She sought comprehensive repairs, reimbursement for heating costs and damaged belongings, rent rebate, and a formal apology. In August 2025, she said she wanted either completion of repairs in line with the stage 2 response or for it to move her. |
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 |
The condition of the property upon letting |
|
Finding |
Outside jurisdiction |
- Our Scheme rules say we may not investigate complaints which a resident did not refer to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The evidence shows that the resident raised concerns linked to the flooding in April 2018, on 18 May 2020. She raised a formal complaint on 10 March 2025. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the issue. We have seen no evidence the landlord prevented the resident from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about the condition of the property upon letting.
|
Complaint |
Reports of damp, mould, water ingress, and repairs |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
What we cannot consider
- After the stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident a temporary move from the property. The resident raised a separate complaint about this and the landlord’s failure to escalate her concerns to Environmental Health following her request. These issues did not form part of her initial complaint to the landlord, or the concerns she brought to us. They are also subject to another complaints process. As such we shall not consider these issues within this investigation.
- The resident told us that the situation impacted on hers and her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury, or impact on health. The courts can deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
- The evidence shows that the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in the property between 2018 and February 2024. Our scheme rules say we may not investigate complaints which a resident did not refer to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. We are satisfied that the resident had the opportunity to raise her concerns as formal complaints during this time. If she did and received no response, she also had opportunities to escalate to us appropriately. We shall consider the landlord’s actions from October 2023, as this was the first point we can see the resident raised reoccurrence of damp and mould and repeated concerns, until May 2025 where the landlord offered the resident a temporary move.
What we can consider
Damp, mould, and water ingress
- Through our review of the evidence, we found concerns with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould. We have seen evidence of historical reports of damp, mould, and the landlord’s action around the concerns. The issue reoccurred, and the resident reported this on 7 October 2023 that the landlord’s previous actions related to painting bricks were only sufficient for several years. She added the damp, mould, and flooring issues reoccurred. There is no evidence of a proper investigation at that time. This was not in line with its damp and mould policy. The landlord did not repair the property promptly or show that it listened to the resident. Instead, it applied mould treatment without understanding the concerns or considering if they linked to her past historic concerns.
- We also found concerns with communication, record keeping, and statutory duties. On 5 November 2023, the resident reported that mould had returned only 3 weeks after cleaning her child’s room in October 2023. She said rainwater pooled at the back of the building, and she had previously told the landlord about blocked gutters. She said she believed the property’s walls were absorbing water. The records show it completed drainage works on 29 November 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy provides no timescales for completion of such works.
- The landlord however has a responsibility under the Landlord and Tennant Act 1985 (LTA1985) to complete such repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord completed this repair within 24 calendar days. Given this was not an urgent repair we consider this a reasonable timeframe. However, there is no evidence the landlord kept the resident informed, raising concerns with its communication about the issue.
- On 4 March 2024, the resident raised concerns about water ingress and mould around the living room and her child’s bedroom windows. She chased on 24 April 2024 because the landlord had not responded for over a month. The landlord’s lack of response raises further communication concerns. There is no evidence it completed the required works. The landlord had duties under the LTA1985 to resolve the issue within a reasonable timeframe.
- On 22 September 2024, the resident reported further damp and mould. She said mould covered her child’s computer chair. She told the landlord she kept all window vents open continuously and still found mould on the side wall by the window. The mould had also returned to the living room. She said she had kept the heating on for 2 weeks. We cannot see this report recorded in the landlord’s repair records but found a copy within its communication documents. The records show attendance on 4 October 2024, 12 days later, and it completed mould treatment in the living room. The landlord tried to attend on 11 October 2024 but could not access the property. It did so on 17 October 2024 and completed another mould treatment to the bedroom and bathroom.
- The evidence suggests the landlord did not take decisive action to identify the root cause of the damp and mould and remedy the situation. It employed temporary remedies. That was unreasonable and impractical.
Living room water ingress
- In October 2024, the resident reported water ingress from the chimney in the living room, contributing to damp and mould. Inspections in November and December 2024 confirmed minor damp and mould, and the landlord agreed the chimney needed removal. By 9 January 2025, the resident said she could not use “one room” for 2 months and that mould covered everything. She also reported an impact on her child’s health.
- This was an opportunity for the landlord to assess habitability under the Housing (Fitness for Human Habitation Act) 2018 and consider health risks, as damp and mould are potential Category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. It has not shown that it did so and as such it failed to assess the circumstances by a qualified professional and take any measures to mitigate potential risks. This was especially so, given that the resident had reported she had a young child in the property and raised health issues previously which she linked to the concerns with the property.
- The landlord did not remove the chimney until February 2025, about 4 months later as evidenced in internal correspondence. The delay in taking definitive action to resolve the potential root cause was unreasonable. The landlord had a responsibility to resolve this issue promptly based on its obligations within the LTA1985 which it did not. The delay was also not in line with its damp and mould policy principles.
- Furthermore, the landlord’s repair records contradict its internal communications. The repairs records say it completed the works on 7 March 2025. It is unclear whether this relates to remedial works, such as hacking off plaster to the rear of the lounge.
- Within its stage 1 response the landlord also acknowledged that while it had removed the chimney and over boarded it, it did not install vents. This could lead to moisture build up as the walls and floor dried out. It is unclear when or whether it completed the necessary works to address this. Its records do not detail any works related to this issue and it does not form part of the schedule of works within its complaint responses.
Repairs
Bathroom flooring
- The landlord attended the resident’s property around a leak in the bathroom on 12 August 2024. It fitted a new bath waste on the same day. Its records show that it attended again the following day for a leak under the bath and water damage to the flooring. It raised follow on works for repair and replacement. It received a quote on 12 September 2024. It completed the flooring on 21 October 2024. The landlord acted within a reasonable timeframe to raise the follow on works. However, it did not take proactive steps to avoid delays, such as chasing a quote which caused the 1 month delay. It took over 2 months in completing the works and this was unreasonable. The records provide no reasons for the delay in obtaining the quote or completing the works. Nor do they show that the landlord kept the resident updated which was inappropriate.
Living room and bedroom flooring
- In an email to the landlord on 27 October 2024, the resident explained that its contractor said rainwater from the chimney had damaged the living room floor. She raised the issue again on 9 January 2025, over two months later, and said the floor crumbled and was wet. She told the landlord this stopped her fitting new flooring.
- In May 2025, the resident raised concerns with a wet concrete floor in one of the bedrooms. She explained it had rained, and it seemed water came through underground. The contractor who attended said the “SPC” was damaged and the floor got wet. It is unclear to us what “SPC” means. The evidence suggests the landlord looked to investigate damage to the flooring in both rooms following the stage 2 response. There were difficulties because the landlord found that it needed to move the resident out temporarily to complete all necessary works. The parties could not agree the move despite the landlord’s efforts to find a temporary property. This is the subject of another complaint, and we will not discuss this. As such, damage to the living room floor remained outstanding between 27 October 2024 and May 2025, a period of 7 months, and this was unreasonable. Damage to the bedroom floor remained outstanding for around 2 weeks prior to its offer of a temporary move.
Windows
- Following an operative’s attendance on 11 October 2023, they commented that the resident wanted a surveyor to attend due to several concerns in the property, including the windows. The resident then raised concerns with the living room window, explaining it allowed water ingress in March 2024. She told the landlord on 24 April 2024 that the window unit was uneven and had a big gap. She also raised concerns about water ingress through her child’s bedroom window. The repair records show a window replacement on 12 June 2024, over 1 month later, in relation to “damp and mould casework” because the window was “beyond its lifespan and beyond repair”. It is unclear which window this was as the records provide no clear information, which was inappropriate.
- The landlord’s records also show it completed reglazing works to windows in July 2024 and works to the lintel (a supporting beam above a doorway or window) above a window on 25 February 2025. It is unclear which windows these related to as the records do not explain, which is a further record keeping failure.
Boiler
- On 4 October 2024, the landlord attended to check the boiler installation and the pipework for a condensing pipe. There may have been a leak or a lack of proper routing of the boiler. In its stage 1 response on 28 March 2025, the landlord confirmed it had picked up the need for a positive connection from the condensing pipe to the boiler. As part of the schedule of works found at stage 2, it said it needed to ensure it had connected the pipe properly and it worked correctly. From the evidence provided, it is unclear whether the resident raised repeated concerns with her boiler. However, it is clear that the landlord began investigating in October 2024 and the issues remained outstanding until at least May 2025. This was a period of over 7 months and was unreasonable.
Conclusion and compensation
- The landlord did not take timely action, if at all, to resolve the ongoing damp and mould concerns in the resident’s property. It did not promptly look to find the root cause, and it delayed resolving repairs. Its communication and record keeping also caused some concerns. Given the level of concern within the property, we would have expected it to complete a relevant risk assessment. We also would have expected to see evidence that it considered the health, and safety of the family and found if there was anyone vulnerable to the situation. It has not shown that it did so, and this was inappropriate.
- The landlord offered the resident compensation of £2,500 around its response to her concerns with damp, mould, water ingress, and repairs. It however provided no information around the period this covered within its complaint response, despite the resident’s requests. The landlord’s evidence explains that it considered the resident’s loss of enjoyment of her property between 9 October 2023 and 28 May 2025, a period of over 2 and a half years. It explained it chose this date as the most recent date following a reported 4 year gap in her reports of damp and mould issues. It awarded a total of £983.11 for the loss of enjoyment of her property.
- The landlord also considered the loss of use of the resident’s living room between 3 October 2024 and 28 May 2025 and awarded £783. It awarded this amount for this period as it explained this was the first report it received around the issue leading to inability to use the room which was not disputed by the resident or the evidence provided for this investigation. It also awarded a further £733.89 for the impact on the resident and her time and trouble. This took its total offer of compensation to £2,500. Its compensation policy says it will pay compensation for service failure. It will pay compensation where it fails to deliver services in accordance with policies, procedures, and service standard. It will also pay compensation for consequential losses as a result of service failure, inconvenience, and distress.
- The landlord acted in line with, and in some instances exceeded, the expectations of its compensation guidance. Instead of paying £50 a day for the loss of use of a room, it used a 20% rent calculation for the duration the room remained unusable. It also acted in line with the guidance by paying a further 10% rent calculation for loss of enjoyment. Furthermore, as per our Remedies Guidance the total sum is in the realm of recommended compensation for a failure of severe maladministration. The landlord also showed that it had taken learning from the resident’s complaint as detailed in its stage 2 response. These are all similar to the issues we identified and raised throughout our investigation.
- We have considered the length of time the resident lived with the issues, the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s inaction. We have also considered the landlord’s actions to try to put things right and the fact it acknowledged failings. While we have identified some additional failures related to the vulnerabilities consideration, the landlord’s overall offer was proportionate to its failures and the impact this had on the resident between 2023 and 2025.
|
Complaint |
Refund for damaged items and excessive heating costs |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
Refund for damaged items
- The resident explained that several of her items were damaged due to the damp and mould in the property. These included items such as beds, bedding, and a sofa bed in the living room. We can see that in one instance, following the resident’s report of mould growth on a bed, the landlord said it would authorise a replacement, this was appropriate. She told us on 5 January 2026 that the mould also damaged her unboxed sofa bed. We can see from the landlord’s complaint response that it asked the resident to provide an itemised list of items she looked to recover the costs of.
- The resident told us that the landlord also asked her to claim through insurance due to the cost of the items she wanted to claim for. It is however unclear which insurance it referred to or when it told her to do so. We cannot see that it discussed this with her during the complaints process which was inappropriate. It could have done so when it told her to raise her medical bill concerns with its insurer on 23 March 2025. It should have explained her options to her and referred her to both its liability insurance and potentially her contents insurance.
- The referral to its liability insurance was particularly important as if the damage to her belongings resulted from its actions/ inactions, it should remedy the situation. The landlord’s actions were not unreasonable, as they demonstrate it looked to reimburse her, and when it realised the cost, advised of other channels to try to resolve the issue.
Excessive heating bills
- In relation to the excessive heating bills the resident first raised her concerns about this on 12 October 2023. She provided a breakdown of her gas bill compared to an average property of the same size. She explained that the evidence showed that her bill was higher than the average property, but mould still covered her home. She raised her concerns again on 24 April 2024, explained she had to keep her heating on for 2 weeks in September 2024, and during her complaint escalation on 8 April 2025.
- Given the length and amount of time the resident had raised her concerns, we would have expected the landlord to take much prompter action to resolve the issue. It asked her to provide copies of her bills in its stage 1 acknowledgement on 23 March 2025 and said within its stage 2 response that it had seen no evidence to support her request for reimbursement. The resident did not directly request reimbursement through her correspondence. However, the resident had made it clear the increased use was due to the persistent damp and mould.
- We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered this in a prompt manner. It was not until its stage 1 acknowledgement, that we see that it asked the resident to provide evidence to support her report. This is a delay of 18 months, demonstrates a lack of customer focus and accountability by the landlord, and was inappropriate. The resident explained to us that the issue remains outstanding in January 2026. She said she had not provided the landlord with any utility bills. We have recommended that the landlord follow up on this with the resident.
|
Complaint |
The complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord’s complaints procedure mirrors the Housing Ombudsman Code. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 and 2 within 10 and 20 working days respectively.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 response within the appropriate timeframes. It however delayed by 8 working days in providing its stage 2 response and did not acknowledge this in its response. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy.
- The resident also asked the landlord to explain what period of time its compensation offer related to. She also raised concerns about the landlord’s consideration around the habitability of the property. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about either of these issues. It also did not explain how it would deal with her concerns about the habitability of the property upon letting the property to her. We would have expected the landlord to set out whether it would consider such an historical issue, and if not, explain why it would not do so. Its failure to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint was inappropriate.
Learning
- The landlord should:
- Consider whether it is aware of the root cause of any recurring issues, and if not to ensure a thorough investigation by suitably qualified professionals to be able to promptly resolve the issues.
- Have appropriate understanding of a resident’s concerns to ensure it responds and takes necessary action around all aspects of the complaint and concerns promptly.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- In order to be able to evidence clearly what it relied on in its investigation of complaints and repair issues the landlord should:
- Appropriately record details of any reported repairs, detailing the works completed.
- Where multiple works are necessary, record the completion date for each individual aspect.
- Provide reasons for any delays in completing works within its records.
Communication
- The landlord should be proactive around keeping resident’s updated around repairs, updates, and resolution of their concerns.