Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Birmingham City Council (202440204)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440204

Birmingham City Council

8 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 the:

a.     resident’s reports of damp and mould;

b.     repairs required to the property;

c.      associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the local authority. The tenancy started on 11 January 2010. The property is a 2-bedroom flat with metal single glazed windows.
  2. The resident is vulnerable. The resident has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The landlord’s records note a flag is in place to inform staff to visit in pairs.
  3. The reports of water ingress into the resident’s property relate to other properties within the building. The resident’s neighbours are referred to as Property A, Property B and Property C. The landlord has not provided the tenancy agreements for the other residents for this investigation. However, it has been assumed the tenancy terms will be the same and they are all tenants of the landlord.
  4. The resident made multiple reports of water ingress into the kitchen and bathroom from Property A from February 2024. The landlord’s records also show the resident made a disrepair claim and the landlord carried out works to remedy the damp and mould complained about.
  5. On 24 October 2024, the landlord recorded a tenancy breach by the resident. This followed threats made by the resident towards operatives and other residents in the building. The police were contacted and the resident arrested for malicious communication.
  6. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 8 January 2025. The resident listed repairs the landlord had not completed to his property which he said caused mould to the property. The resident also said:

a.     The window frames to the kitchen, living room and bedroom were defective;

b.     Repairs were not completed quickly;

c.      The Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) said he should request compensation for disrepair and inequality under the Disability Act 2010.

d.     He had experienced discriminatory behaviour as he was not eligible for the warm home discount.

e.     His preferred outcome was for the landlord to resolve the cold to the property by repairing the gaps around the windows and frame.

  1. The landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 5 March 2025. The landlord said:

a.     The resident had refused access for the repairs to be carried out to the property. The works order raised on 25 November 2024 was on hold until the resident agreed to provide access.

b.     An operative tried to get access to the property on 20 February 2025. As the resident did not provide access, the works order was cancelled.

c.      Once the resident agreed to provide access, the works order would be reinstated.

d.     The complaint had not been upheld. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident should provide access and requested the resident did so for the works to be completed.

e.     The disrepair claim was settled in April 2024 and the works completed by August 2024. It had no compensation to review and signposted the resident to the CAB to get further advice.

f.        It apologised for any inconvenience experienced by the resident and requested the resident to advise of any support needed.

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint.
  2. The landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 18 March 2025. The landlord said:

a.     It had assessed a tenancy breach by the resident had occurred on 24 October 2024 after receiving complaints of verbal abuse to its staff and threats to an operative. The resident had also threatened other residents when trying to locate the source of the leak.

b.     The resident had obligations under the tenancy agreement not to harass or threaten employees.

c.      At the visit on 21 November 2024 the resident had agreed to an inspection to assess the works required to the property.

d.     The contractor attended the agreed appointment for 18 December 2024 and the resident had not provided access. Its contractor had agreed to attend an appointment on any Wednesday after 3pm.

e.     An appointment was arranged for 22 January 2025. On attendance the resident told the contractor all contact should go through the Ombudsman and the resident did not provide access for the repair.

f.        It had assessed there was no water ingress to the resident’s property from the roof. However, there was condensation from a lack of heating and ventilation.

g.     The complaint was not upheld. The resident was to provide access for repairs to be carried out and it apologised for any upset or inconvenience caused.

h.     With regard to the disrepair claim, it had sent a compensation review form to the resident for completion.

  1. After the complaint process ended the following events occurred:

a.     The resident made a further report of water ingress into his property on 31 March 2025 which he said had been ongoing for 4 days.

b.     The landlord inspected Property A and Property B and found no evidence of leaks or water ingress from the roof. The landlord maintained its position: the property had condensation resulting from a lack of heating and ventilation. The resident said he only heated 1 bedroom as he found the property too expensive to heat and experienced difficulty ventilating the property.

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident expressed he wanted the landlord to move him permanently. The council allocates available property under Part VI Housing Act 1996. If the resident is dissatisfied with the administration of his housing application, the resident can make a complaint to the council and then to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for consideration.
  2. The warm home discount is not managed by the landlord. The resident’s utility company is responsible for this. If the resident is unhappy about his eligibility of the scheme in the first instance, he should contact his utility company. If he remains dissatisfied with their response, he can escalate his complaint to the Energy Ombudsman.

resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act – the courts can do this. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures. Landlords may be able to show they have properly considered the Equality Act if they consider the impact of their decisions on the individuals affected and that there is an appeals process for decisions to be challenged.
  2. Section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement that the landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. Section 9A of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also implies a term in the tenancy agreement that the property is fit for human habitation at the time that the tenancy being granted and throughout the lifetime of the tenancy. Both legal obligations are triggered when the landlord is notified of an issue; the landlord then has a reasonable period of time to carry out works for which it is liable.
  3. The resident made a disrepair claim to the landlord, at the time the resident had representation from a solicitor. The date the disrepair claim was made is not known and the schedule of works have not been provided for this investigation. The landlord records describe the disrepair claim as settled. We have not seen evidence the claim progressed to court and the resident’s solicitor ended his representation in March 2024. The landlord continued to progress the works and these were completed by August 2024.
  4. A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure especially if the issue is complex as it appears to have been in this case. Between February 2024 to March 2025 the resident made at least 7 reports of water ingress into the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord took the following steps to identify the reason for the reports of water ingress.

a.     On each occasion, it tried to inspect the resident’s property but was unable to gain access.

b.     The roof was checked on 5 September 2024,16 October 2024 and 4 November 2024. A defect to the roof was not identified.

c.      The panel to the resident’s kitchen in the resident’s property was checked in November 2024

d.     It arranged to carry out mould treatment and to renew the bath on 25 November 2024.

e.     However, the resident did not provide access for the appointment on 25 November 2024 when the landlord attended.

  1. The landlord inspected the properties located above the resident. The landlord attended Property A and Property B on 16 October 2024 and 23 October 2024. Neither property had a leak from their property into the resident’s property. On inspecting Property B, the landlord was informed the roof repairs carried out in 2022 were successful with no further water ingress experienced.
  2. Further checks were carried out by the landlord in November 2024 to the soil vent pipe and other pipe work in the resident’s property. The landlord determined there was no water ingress into the property. The landlord concluded there was condensation to the kitchen and bedroom windows with evidence of historical condensation. The landlord recommended ventilation to the property including the installation of a positive ventilation unit (PIV) and the management of condensation by the resident. Following the comprehensive checks carried out by the landlord, it was reasonable for it to rely on the technical and professional advice it had received regarding the reason for the condensation in the property.
  3. The resident disagreed with the installation of the PIV. The resident said his income prevented him from using PIV as he could not afford the running costs. The landlord looked into this and assessed it could not comment on the resident’s financial situation. However, the landlord could have referred or signposted the resident to organisations to help assess whether his income could be maximised. This was a shortcoming.
  4. The resident requested the landlord change the metal frame windows to UPVC windows. The landlord did not agree to the resident’s request. The landlord explained changing the type of window would not stop the need for the resident to act to manage the condensation in the property by wiping down any additional moisture. This was reasonable to manage the resident’s expectations and gave guidance to the resident regarding his responsibilities to manage his tenancy. The landlord did not identify a defect to the windows. Therefore, replacing the windows would be an improvement to the property, the landlord is not required to make.
  5. Other checks taken by the landlord included checking the service duct panel following the leak into Property C. The landlord recognised despite Property C being located at the other side of the building, it was necessary to eliminate any possibility the water leak may have progressed to the resident’s property. The inspection found no moisture present in the service duct panel or pipe work.
  6. The resident requested in March 2025 for the landlord to provide temporary accommodation. The landlord assessed alternative accommodation was not required as the repairs to remedy the property condition could be completed with the resident in occupation. This was reasonable as the assessed repairs to the property included a mould wash and adequate heating and ventilation to the property.
  7. After the complaint process ended, on 8 April 2024, the resident made a further report of water ingress into the property. The landlord maintained its position it had found no evidence of water ingress into the property from the roof. The landlord also maintained the property had condensation from the lack of heating and adequate ventilation.
  8. In summary, the landlord has demonstrated it had taken reasonable steps to assess the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. The landlord showed it had responded to the reports made by the resident and after its assessment it maintained there was no water ingress into the property. The landlord identified there was condensation caused by inadequate heating and ventilation to the property. It recommended the installation of a PIV to help resolve the condensation in the property. However, there were difficulties with the landlord obtaining access to the property to carry out mould treatments. Also the resident indicated he was unwilling to take the appropriate action to manage the condensation in the property. This is likely to have contributed to the build-up of condensation in the. For those reasons, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

repairs required to the property

  1. The landlord is responsible for the structure and maintenance of the property. This includes the windows in the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out repairs to the window handles to the living room, bedroom and kitchen on 27 February 2024 in line with its repairing obligations.
  2. The landlord is responsible for carrying out repairs to the resident’s property and for the health and safety of its staff including its contractors. After receiving reports of abusive and threatening behaviour to its staff, operatives and other residents in October 2024, it was reasonable for the landlord to undertake a risk assessment and record any visits to the resident’s property should be undertaken in pairs. Also, for the landlord to agree for a staff member to attend any appointments when repairs were being conducted.
  3. It was also reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident regarding his responsibilities under the tenancy agreement and to notify the police. It is noted the resident was arrested following the landlord’s contact with the police.
  4. The landlord’s complaint review informed the resident of its position regarding the repairs he had requested. The landlord inspected the property on 21 November 2024 and explained it was unlikely there was asbestos from the tiling in the bathroom, the handle to the metal frame windows to the kitchen required replacement and it could not change the living room window or bedroom windows. The landlord also explained windows would be replaced if they had a defect that could not be repaired and this was not the case in the resident’s circumstances. Furthermore, it had been unable to carry out the inspection and necessary repairs to the kitchen windows as the resident had not provided access for the repairs to be carried out. This was necessary to manage the resident’s expectations about the repairs it was obligated to carry out and reassure the resident concerning the health and safety issues he had raised.
  5. The landlord arranged an appointment for 18 December 2024 with the resident to carry out the repairs. When the landlord and contractor attended, the resident was unable to be contacted on the day. The landlord’s records show the contractors were unavailable for the following 2 weeks as it was the closedown period for the Christmas period. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 January 2025 requesting access for the repairs and arranged a further appointment for 15 January 2025. The resident advised he was unable to attend the appointment as he had to attend court that day. The landlord has demonstrated it took reasonable steps to undertake an inspection of the property following the reports made by the resident. The landlord attempted to assess the repairs required to the property to resolve the issues and prevent them reoccurring.
  6. The resident did not agree to a further appointment with the landlord. Instead, the resident advised in January 2025 he had been in contact with our service and repairs should be coordinated though us. The landlord is responsible for arranging and agreeing repairs with the resident. Under the tenancy agreement the resident is required to provide access for such repairs. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain this to the resident in its complaints responses and request for the resident to provide access. We operate a dispute resolution service, which is impartial and independent of landlords and residents. The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to arrange repair appointments but rather, to assess whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
  7. The resident  said in his communication to the landlord and more recently to us there is a pest infestation in the property. The landlord’s inspection reports in October 2024 and November 2024 did not identify the presence of pests in the property. Since that date, the landlord has been unable to attend and inspect the property, consequently, we cannot comment on whether the landlord has acted in line with its obligations. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to assess the action it needs to take to resolve any pest infestation identified in the property.
  8. Given the resident has expressed his wish to move to alternative accommodation it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to apply for a transfer via the allocation scheme. It was also reasonable the landlord spoke to the resident’s support worker to request for assistance for the resident with the completion of the on-line housing application form to obtain housing.
  9. Overall, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to assess, inspect and carry out repairs to the resident’s property. The landlord decided a technical member of staff would attend with the operatives to provide a safe working environment. Some appointments made with the resident were not kept as the resident had medical or court appointments. However, under the tenancy agreement, the resident was responsible for providing access to the landlord for the repairs to be carried out. It is recognised the landlord experienced difficulty organising an appointment at a date and time suitable for the resident and its contractors to attend. The landlord is aware of its obligations to carry out repairs and should continue to engage with the resident to agree a suitable appointment for these to take place. For those reasons, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure says it will respond to complaints within 15 working days at its first stage, within 15 working days at its second stage and 20 working days at its third stage.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 January 2025. The Complaint Handling Code says landlord’s should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 12 February 2025, taking 25 working days. This is not reasonable as the landlord did not act in line with its complaint handling targets. This also delayed the resident receiving its position on the complaint.
  3. The Complaint Handling Code tells landlords; complaints should be responded to within 10 working days. If it cannot meet the complaint response time scale, it should request an extension with the resident. The landlord responded to the resident’s Stage 1 complaint on 5 March 2025, taking 40 working days to provide its complaint response. This is not reasonable as there is no evidence the landlord requested an extension with the resident and did not meet the timescale given in its acknowledgment to the resident. The landlord also again did not meet its published complaint handling timescales. This caused inconvenience to the resident who experienced an unreasonable delay.
  4. The Complaint Handling Code (2024) tells landlords, its complaint procedure should have 2 stages. The landlord’s compensation procedure provided for this investigation refers to a 3-stage complaint handling procedure which does not comply with the complaint handling code. This is not reasonable as it extends the complaint handling process for residents. Landlords should use the opportunity to improve the landlord and tenant relationship by quickly recognising and addressing resident’s concerns.
  5. Overall, the landlord in its review of the complaint has not demonstrated it acted in line with the complaint handling code. The landlord did not acknowledge it did not meet its published complaint handling time targets at the first stage of the complaint procedure. Our Remedies Guidance says for service failures where the landlord has not acknowledged its failure, a compensation award starting at £100 is appropriate. For the complaint handling failures identified in the complaint, redress of £100 is considered fair and reasonable and a finding of maladministration has been made.
  6. We published a special report into the landlord in January 2023, this made recommendations regarding the landlord’s complaint handling. The specific recommendation was to bring the landlord’s complaint handling in line with the complaint handling targets outlined in the now statutory Complaint Handling Code. The landlord has updated its website to show its new complaint handling targets and has removed reference to the third stage of the complaints procedure. It is not clear why the documents provided to us for this investigation shows the old complaint handling targets. As the landlord has updated its complaint handling information to residents, orders regarding this have not been made in this investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in 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 no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs required to the property.
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should:

a.     Write to the resident to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling service failures.

b.     Pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience and distress caused by its complaint handling failures.

  1. The landlord should confirm compliance in writing with the orders outlined above.

Recommendation

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord should contact the resident to agree a convenient appointment to inspect and carry out the identified repairs. It should also assess the action required regarding the resident’s reports of pest infestation in the property.