Bromford Housing Group Limited (202328975)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328975

Bromford Housing Group Limited

15 August 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. Handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident lives with his wife and 2 children in a 3-bed semi-detached house that is owned and managed by a housing association. The property was let under an assured tenancy agreement in July 2011.The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident but notes that the resident’s son is severely asthmatic.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 9 October 2023 which the landlord acknowledged on 13 October 2023. The resident said:
1. His reports of damp and mould had been the subject of a previous complaint and had still not been resolved.
2. It had taken 2 months for a contractor’s report to be shared with the landlord’s subcontractor and that 7 months later still no work had been carried out.
3. The landlord had not called him back as promised when he had chased the progress of the works in October 2023.
4. The property was in a state of disrepair, the landlord always completed the quickest, cheapest fix that only masked the problem and despite many assessments not a single improvement had been recommended.
5. He had been unable to decorate the house, his personal items had been damaged over the years, and the property presented health issues to his asthmatic son.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 27 October 2023 in which it said:
1. The resident had experienced damp in the property since 2012 and works orders had been raised in 2012, 2014, and 2015.
2. It’s damp and mould specialist team had most recently inspected the property in March 2023, prepared a report and forwarded works orders to a contractor, but in October 2023 the works had still not been completed. It had requested information about the progress of the repairs and would update the resident when it received it.
3. It upheld the complaint as there had been damp and mould issues for a number of years and its delay in progressing works between March 2023 and October 2023 was unacceptable.
4. It apologised and offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £150 for the time it had taken to complete the repair and said that the compensation was based on its service failure, delays, and the impact these had on him. Upon payment it would be discharged from all further liabilities connected with the subject matter of the claim.
5. The resident could escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint procedure within 20 working days.
The resident sent a stage 2 escalation request to the landlord on 14 November 2023 in which he restated his concerns about damp and mould and said:
1. The landlord had not provided a schedule of works to address disrepair in the property and had not employed scrutiny and oversight, nor taken continuous learning from similar cases.
2. Awaab’s law had been enacted in response to the death of a child due to damp and mould and he had made the landlord aware of his son’s asthma which it had not acknowledged.
3. He had not had any contact from the landlord since 31 October 2023 which was an example of it not addressing the issues.
4. The landlord had a duty to ensure the property met decent homes standards, but the property was defective and had high levels of damp and mould. He had arranged for an independent surveyor to assess the property who had reported defects to the rear steps, a cold bridge that had formed adjacent to the side door entrance, and a defect caused by an accessibility ramp.
5. Its offer of £150 compensation did not come close to compensating him for the landlord’s lack of management. He further said that a number of his personal items had been damaged due to the presence of damp and mould which had not been acknowledged or compensated for.
6. He wanted the landlord to provide a copy of its contractor’s report, a schedule of works including timescales, and a revised compensation offer.
The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement letter to the resident on 14 December 2023 and sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 2 February 2024. The landlord:
1. Said it was sorry that it had not resolved the complaint at stage 1, and it provided examples of its complaint handling that it recognised were outside of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’) which it said was a serious failure.
2. Advised that the property had been identified as suitable for a future insulation improvement programme due to its construction.
3. Restated advice it had provided in its stage 1 response about its handling of damp and mould repairs and summarised further actions it had taken before it started work on 29 January 2024. It also said that additional plasterwork and mould wash repairs had been identified and would be confirmed shortly.
4. Attached a copy of the contractor’s report and advised that it was implementing a post-inspection process to check works at regular, yet to be determined, intervals.
5. Said that it had reviewed its handling of the damp and mould and that some action had been taken, but it had not ensured the issues were remedied. Further, it said that it had not dealt with the complaint in accordance with its policy which it said was a significant failure for which it apologised.
6. Offered the resident a goodwill payment of £3,825 which was valid for 6 months and would be paid as full and final settlement upon the closure of the complaint. The award was broken down as:
  1. £100 per month for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident since January 2022 which totalled £2,400.
  2. £75 per complaint handling failure which totalled £225.
  3. £50 per month for delays in completing works from the point of complaint to the commencement of works which totalled £1,200.
7. Said its response was final, and the resident could contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
This Service wrote to the resident on 24 June 2024 to acknowledge his request for us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In the resident’s correspondence he has said that the landlord’s response to the damp and mould repairs had negatively affected his son’s physical health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and his son’s ill-health. He may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his son’s health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Reports of damp and mould in the property.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
As stated in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp & Mould (2021) (the Spotlight Report), ‘Landlords should implement a data driven, risk-based approach with respect to damp and mould. This will reduce over reliance on residents to report issues, help landlords identify hidden issues and support landlords to anticipate and prioritise interventions before a complaint or disrepair claim is made.’
The landlord completed a series of damp and mould repairs at the property on undisclosed dates. In December 2015 it took out a 10-year insurance policy to cover the repairs. The policy covered a recurrence of rising damp, a breakdown of structural waterproofing and the failure of repairs it had completed to the roof. In January 2016 the landlord also received a 20-year warrantee for a chemical damp proof it had installed at the property. There is no evidence to suggest the resident reported concerns about damp and mould to the landlord between 2016 and 2022. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered making an insurance claim or relying on its warranty for the completion of damp and mould works (specifically cavity wall and loft insulation) which it later identified, and which were the subject of this complaint.
It is unclear when the resident reported concerns about damp and mould to the landlord, but he told his MP on 11 December 2022 that the landlord and environmental health had undertaken several property inspections. The landlord subsequently undertook 3 further property inspections in January, March, and September 2023 to ascertain the extent and cause of damp and mould. While it was appropriate for the landlord to commission a specialist survey following its inspection of January 2023, it was unreasonable for it not to have commissioned the report when it first inspected the property. Further its decision to reinspect the property in September 2023, after it had approved and issued a ‘package of works’ to its contractor, caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident and further delayed the progress of repairs.
The Spotlight Report recommends that landlords recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being residents. In light of the findings of the specialist survey, and the landlord’s legal obligations under the HHSRS, The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 and Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to satisfy itself that the property was fit for habitation. However there is no evidence that the landlord did so, and this demonstrated a lack of regard for the health and wellbeing of the resident and his children.
On 11 May 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the property had been scoped for programmed external wall insulation works during the approaching financial year. However, it did not provide further information about these works to manage his expectations. This resulted in the resident raising further enquiries and thereby incurring time and trouble that could have been avoided. Further it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have considered commencing this work sooner to alleviate the distress and inconvenience damp and mould had caused the household over an extended period of time.
The landlord recognised that it had no records of any actions taken between May and September 2023. This was unreasonable under the circumstances. Furthermore, on 27 October 2023 it said it still hadn’t approved a quote that its contractor had submitted on 14 September 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide specific timescales for appointed repairs, unappointed repairs, planned and cyclical works. 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. The landlord’s failure to approve a quote for more than 20 working days was unreasonable.
During a visit on 22 November 2023 the landlord’s operative told the resident that plasterwork repairs in the property were his responsibility as he had removed wallpaper from the walls. The resident disagreed and reported this to the landlord as a further example of property disrepair. He also asked the landlord to consider completing these works in addition to the works it had already identified. However the landlord failed to clarify whether the plasterwork repairs would be completed in its stage 2 response which it issued 3 months later. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have provided a response to the request for plasterwork repairs, especially given in January 2024 its own contractor also confirmed that plasterwork was required.
In November 2023 the resident said he expected the landlord to have followed-up on its repairs to ensure that it had rectified the issues and in his stage 2 complaint he raised questions about the landlord’s post-inspection process. The landlord indicated in its response that it was to commence a post inspection programme but was unable to provide clear timescales as they had yet to be determined. This was missed opportunity for the landlord to have improved the resident’s confidence in its repairs service.
The resident requested a copy of the specialist contractor’s survey in May 2023 and was told by the landlord that it did not disclose these reports until all works were completed. It further explained that this property information would not be disclosed if he submitted a subject access request. This resulted in the resident arranging his own surveyor at his own cost to ascertain the level of work required in the property. However, the landlord subsequently provided a copy of the survey to the resident with its stage 2 complaint response at a time when the works were still unresolved. While the landlord’s decision to share the report was welcome and evidences a resolution focussed approach it was contradictory to its previous advice. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have disclosed the report when the resident had first requested a copy.
The resident was required to maintain a significant amount of contact with the landlord to progress repairs the landlord had identified it was responsible for. He was required to send photographs and chase the landlord for replies to his emails and updates on repairs. He also rearranged his availability to accommodate the landlord’s missed appointments and undisclosed sickness absence and the landlord’s unplanned appointments and unannounced visits. The Spotlight Report recommends landlords communicate effectively with residents, sharing any relevant information so that the resident understands its actions and next steps. The landlord did not consistently do so in its handling of this case, and this caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident. It also resulted in the resident losing confidence in the landlord’s repairs service which he expressed in his escalation request with reference to Awaab’s law and his general perception that it failed to apply scrutiny and oversight to damp and mould matters.
In his complaints the resident outlined that he had experienced damage to his personal property due to the presence of damp and mould in the property. The landlord did not address this matter in its complaint responses, and this was unreasonable. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed the matter, for example by requesting evidence of the damaged property or providing advice about submitting an insurance claim. This approach would have been in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy which says residents should initially look to claim through their home contents insurance. It also says that payments for damaged personal possessions will be paid on an indemnity basis, taking into account the age and wear and tear of the items in question. This Service wrote to the resident on 24 June 2024 to advise that we cannot determine any liability for such damages. However, the resident could consider making a claim on a suitable insurance policy and/or submitting a request to the landlord for the reimbursement of costs.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported concerns about damp and mould since January 2022 and that the matters had remained unresolved in February 2024, 2 years later. This investigation has identified that the landlord:
1. Failed to consider the risk to the physical and mental health of the resident’s family, notably his son who was severely asthmatic.
2. Undertook an unreasonable number of property inspections at the property, repeating its findings and thereby stalling the progress of the repairs.
3. Failed to communicate with the resident effectively, explaining its actions and its planned response to the damp and mould repairs.
4. Failed to effectively manage the knowledge and information it held about the repairs so as to ensure it took a coordinated approach to address the matters.
5. Failed to share its contractor’s report with the resident until 9 months after he had requested it.
6. Failed to approve quotes/works orders within reasonable timescales which exacerbated delays in completing works.
7. Failed to address any damage that had been caused to the resident’s personal property in keeping with its policy.
8. Failed to remedy the damp and mould repairs in the property that it had been aware of for over 2 years prior to issuing its final complaint response.
The failings detailed in paragraph 21 were collectively a series of significant and repeated failures which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident, his family, and their enjoyment of their home. Taking all matters into account the landlord’s failings in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property amount to severe maladministration. However, the landlord acknowledged its failings in its final response to the complaint.
In the landlord’s final complaint response it increased its previous compensation offer of £150 to £3,600 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that had been caused to the resident. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, the implementation of a post inspection process and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s recognition of its own failings, its apology, and its decision to implement a post-inspection process in response to the resident’s complaint was fair and evidences that it sought to put matters right. However it did not do so, and it is evident that the matters remain outstanding. Increasing its offer of compensation in recognition of its failings was also appropriate under the circumstances. The landlord calculated its compensation award from the point of the resident’s initial complaint in January 2022 up until the date it commenced works, which it assessed to be 24 months. It then offered the resident £100 per month (£2,400) for distress and inconvenience and £50 per month (£1,200) for its delays starting the works. It is noted that the compensation offer was greater than the £3,000 maximum amount stated in its compensation policy.
In the resident’s stage 1 complaint he said that he had been unable to decorate and make the house a home. In his Stage 2 complaint he said that the environmental living conditions had been severe due to poor fabric condition and no insulation. Moderate to severe damp and mould was found to be present in the dining room, bathroom, bedroom, kitchen.. The presence of significant damp and mould was found to be in rooms where most day-to day family activity would take place. Consequently the household’s enjoyment of the property would have been significantly impaired. The property contains 6 rooms, (not including the porch, hallways, and landings) and 4 of them were impacted by moderate to severe damp and mould. This was 66% of the rooms in the property. This Service considers in circumstances where there has been a loss of service that has been charged for a reasonable starting point for calculating the proportionate level of compensation is to use the level of rent and consider the loss of enjoyment of the property.
Moderate to severe damp affected the resident’s enjoyment of the impacted rooms. As the rooms were still usable, it is reasonable for the landlord to provide an award of compensation for amenity loss based upon 35% of rent for the impacted rooms between 24 January 2022 and 2 February 2024. This totals £4,508.42 and is broken down as follows.
1. £113.85 x 10 weeks between 24 January 2022 and 4 April 2022 = £1,138.50 x 35% = £398.48.
2. £118.52 x 52 weeks between 4 April 2022 and 3 April 2023 = £6,163.04 x 35% = £2,157.06.
3. £126.81 x 44 weeks between 3 April 2023 and 2 February 2024 = £5,579.64 x 35% = £1,952.88
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this revised award is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account and we have made an order concerning this below. If the landlord has already paid the resident the £3,825 compensation it previously offered this is to be deducted from the total compensation. Considering the level of compensation already offered by the landlord we have found maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy which says complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days. It also says stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Said it had received the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 13 October 2023 despite the resident emailing it to the landlord on 9 October 2023.
2. Did not issue its response to the resident’s complaint of 9 October 2023 until 27 October 2023 which was 4 working days later that the landlord’s 10- working day complaint policy.
3. Did not log the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 8 November 2023 until 14 December 2023.
4. Did not issue its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint of 8 November 2023 until 2 February 2024 which was 39 working days later that the landlord’s 20-working day complaint policy timescale.
5. Said in its stage 2 response that the resident’s stage 2 escalation request had been dated 14 November 2023 despite the resident confirming he had emailed it to the landlord on 8 November 2023 in his email of 2 February 2024.
6. Did not fully address the resident’s complaint in keeping with Paragraph 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’) which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. For example it did not address the resident’s reference to the health of his family and damage to his personal items.
7. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 2 complaint in keeping with Paragraph 5.16 of the Handling Code which says landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, any reasons for the decisions made.
The landlord indicated that its compensation offer(s) would be paid in full and final settlement of the complaint despite recognising that it had not completed all the damp and mould works in the property. It was unreasonable for the landlord to attempt to indemnify itself for any future failings, and it was inappropriate for it to imply that accepting the offer would prevent the resident from seeking further financial redress for example, via a legal remedy or through this Service. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain to the resident that its final compensation offer related to its assessment of matters up to and no further than its final complaint response of 2 February 2024.
The landlord recognised 3 failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint, and it offered him £75 for each failing thereby totalling £225. However, this investigation has identified further failings and therefore considers that the amount it offered was not proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident. An increased award of compensation is therefore awarded below in keeping with the range of awards set out in this Service’s remedies guidance for cases such as this where a landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation and a further award has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of damp and mould in the property and for its complaint handling failings.
2. Pay the resident £4,583.42 in compensation made up as follows:
  1. £3,600 as offered in its stage 2 complaint response for its recognised failures in responding to reports of damp and mould in the property if this has not already been paid.
  2. £683.42 for the impact of the failures in its response to reports of damp and mould on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property.
  3. £225 as offered in its stage 2 complaint response for its recognised complaint handling failures if this has not already been paid.
  4. £75 for time and trouble caused to the resident for its additional complaint handling failures.
3. Provide the resident with a schedule of works that it intends to undertake to address damp and mould in the property. This schedule should clearly state the works description and provide clear timescales for the completion of the work.
The compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.
The landlord has provided evidence to this Service related to a previous complaint investigation (202210934) which shows that it has 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 has provided copies of its subsequent planning process and its draft interim condensation, damp, and mould policy 2024. A further order for the landlord to review its approach to damp and mould has therefore not been made.