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

Birmingham City Council (202010091)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010091

Birmingham City Council

6 April 2021


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. repairs to the porch roof of the resident’s property;
    2. the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The landlord has not provided any repair records or records of emails or telephone calls prior to the resident making a formal complaint on 24 September 2020. However, the resident has provided a chronology of events which states that the landlord was due to visit on 17 July 2020 to assess a repair to the porch roof but failed to attend. Following further contact from the resident, the landlord attended on 24 and 29 July 2020 and 6 August 2020. It is not known why there were three visits as the landlord has not provided any records of these.
  2. According to the resident’s chronology, at some point in August 2020, an asbestos check was carried out on the roof. A further visit was carried out on 20 August 2020 when, according to the resident, she was told that asbestos was present and that the visit on this date was to see how best to remove it. She stated that the cover to the roof was removed and an area of rot was exposed, but then left open to the elements.
  3. The resident chased the landlord on 28 August 2020 and was told an appointment was booked for 7 September 2020. On 8 September 2020, the resident chased the landlord and was told the job would have to be rebooked and it would call the resident back. On 10 September 2020, the resident again chased the landlord and says she was told that, as the porch roof was shared with the neighbour who owned their property, the cost of any repair would have to be shared.
  4. The resident heard nothing further and once again contacted the landlord on 24 September 2020. She states that she was told the asbestos was minimal and contained in the felt so posed no issues. She also made a formal complaint on 24 September 2020, in which she asked for the repair to be carried out and for her to be contacted with updates. In the landlord’s response of the same day, it partially upheld the complaint as the delay was shared between it, the contractor and the neighbour. It advised that the contractor would provide an update shortly.
  5. On 6 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to say she had received a telephone call and was told scaffolding for the repair would be booked and she would know by 29 September 2020 exactly which date. However, she had not heard anything at the time of writing. She advised that she had spoken to her neighbour and he had not heard anything from the landlord about the repair he was jointly responsible for.
  6. The landlord treated this as a request to escalate the formal complaint and wrote to the resident on 6 October 2020 saying that the complaint would be reviewed by a senior manager. An internal email of 8 October 2020 stated that the landlord was chasing the contractor, and on 12 October 2020 a further internal email confirmed that a quote had been received but would need to be discussed with the neighbour.
  7. According to the resident’s chronology, the landlord attended on 15 October 2020 and told her it could cut the porch at the join with the neighbour’s property but could not do this until the asbestos had been dealt with.
  8. On 28 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the neighbour with details of the work required and what his contribution would be. It asked him to sign and return a confirmation slip.
  9. In the landlord’s stage two response of 29 October 2020, it stated that it had to wait for an amended quote before approaching the neighbour, it was now waiting for his response, and it could not proceed without his agreement. This was the final stage of the complaints procedure and the resident was advised if she was still unhappy to approach this Service.
  10. Although the formal complaint process was complete at this time, the resident’s chronology has provided more information and the landlord has provided further correspondence in relation to the repair. The chronology states that the resident chased the landlord again on 17 November 2020 and was told the job was closed. The landlord said it would raise a job for an asbestos check, but the resident pointed out that this had already been done. Also on 17 November 2020, the same person who had originally attended the property visited again. As the condition of the porch roof had by now deteriorated, he took photographs.
  11. On 24 November 2020, an internal email questioned whether anyone had chased the neighbour regarding the letter sent on 28 October 2020. A follow up letter was sent on 25 November 2020 asking the neighbour to contact the landlord.
  12. The resident contacted her local member of parliament (MP) and, on 14 January 2021, the MP wrote to the landlord to chase the matter up.  The landlord responded the same day, stating that, although unsightly, there was no evidence that the roof was structurally unsound and therefore it could not pursue any enforcement action to ensure the neighbour complied. It also said it would visit again in the near future.
  13. In an internal email of 18 January 2021, the landlord noted that it had visited the property again, was waiting for a quote to renew the porch roof, and assumed that it would happen ‘fairly swiftly’ due to the unsightly impact.
  14. In a further email to the MP, the landlord confirmed an appointment had been made to look at the repair on 12 February 2021. It is not known if this appointment happened, or if any repair to the roof has taken place.

Assessment and findings

The repairs

  1. In accordance with the terms Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the property and this would include the porch roof. The tenancy agreement specifically states that repair to any porch is the responsibility of the landlord. As a result, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns about the porch roof and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified.
  2. The landlord has a repairs policy which sets out the service standards to be expected for repair timescales. Whilst the landlord has not specified which bracket it assessed the repair to be in, routine repairs are expected to be completed within 30 days. The Ombudsman understands that it is not always possible to meet published timescales when there are unusual circumstances or difficulties the landlord has to deal with. However, in such cases this Service would expect the landlord to proactively be seeking a resolution to any delays and to be liaising regularly with the resident, explaining the difficulties and outlining options for moving matters forward.
  3. The landlord has provided this Service with no evidence as to the extent of the repair, nor any evidence of reports from its contractors, or any details of visits it made to assess the repair. There appear to have been multiple visits (but it is not known why), there were visits booked that the landlord failed to attend, and there was duplication on job orders (such as the asbestos checks). The landlord has claimed that the roof is unsightly but structurally sound, although at a later date it suggested that the work needed to be done ‘swiftly’ because of the unsightliness.  It is not possible, due to the lack of records provided, for this Service to assess whether all the visits were necessary, but there seems to have been confusion on the landlord’s part over missed appointments and jobs being booked twice and confusion over the urgency of the matter. This confusion may be directly linked to the absence of clear landlord records.
  4. The resident has been told that there is asbestos present, but that it is minimal and posed no issue. There is no further explanation from the landlord as to why the asbestos posed no issue, its proposals for removal of the asbestos, or any other communication with the resident around this issue, despite the fact that it was raised in her formal complaint. In addition, the resident has said that she was told by the landlord that it could cut the porch at the join with her neighbour but there is no evidence as to whether it considered this course of action further.  Further, there is no evidence that the landlord considered or undertook any temporary repair whilst it pursued the neighbour to get his agreement to the work.
  5. In its email to the MP, the landlord stated that, as the roof was sound, it could not take any enforcement action against the neighbour. However, as mentioned above, the landlord has a legal obligation to keep the porch in good repair. It did not contact the neighbour until 28 October 2020, more than three months after the resident first complained about the issue. It then failed to follow up its initial letter until the resident chased it up. 
  6. There is no evidence of any attempt to visit the neighbour or contact them by telephone to discuss the matter. Whilst the Ombudsman is sympathetic to the difficulties the landlord may have encountered, this does not wholly abrogate it of its responsibilities to keep the porch roof in good repair and to keep the resident updated. Therefore, this Service would expect the landlord to take a proactive approach to resolving the issue, rather than allowing the matter to remain unresolved for several months and wait for the resident to chase it up.
  7. The landlord’s record keeping is of concern as there is little evidence that it was communicating effectively with the resident about the repair and any problems in completing it.  The resident had to chase the landlord on several occasions to get a response, was given dates for visits that did not happen, and was given no explanation or apology for any delay or lack of communication.
  8. The repair had still not been carried out by January 2021, six months after being reported to the landlord. This Service is not aware whether the repair has now taken place.

 

Complaints Handling

  1. The landlord has a complaints policy which states that it will investigate the complaint fully and send a full response when dealing with any formal complaint.
  2. When the resident first made her formal complaint she raised not only the repair to the porch, but also the presence of asbestos and the landlord’s lack of communication with her. She asked how matters would be progressed. At stage one, she received a very brief reply which was written on the same day as she made her complaint. The landlord failed to explain how it would resolve the matter of the repair, the three-month delay in contacting the neighbour, or how it would progress matters. Further, whilst partially upholding the complaint, the landlord offered no apology or other redress for the identified failings.
  3. The stage two response was similar in that it was brief, offered little in the way of explanation for delays, gave no detail as to how the landlord would resolve matters, and offered no apology to the resident. At stage two the landlord gave no indication as to whether it was upholding, or partially upholding the complaint.
  4. The landlord did not carry out a full investigation nor send a full response in line with its own procedure. The complaint responses failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to ‘be fair’, including being clear on where responsibility lies and ‘put things right’ which includes resolving the dispute and proposing outcomes.
  5. The landlord has also provided this Service with a copy of its compensation policy which states ‘DO NOT make any payments that are ‘discretionary’ or ‘good will’.  Any payments made where there is no liability are illegal and the person authorising such payments can be surcharged.’  It goes on to say ‘Do not pay for: …. Inconvenience/distress etc’.
  6. It is not clear on the legal basis the landlord is relying on and this Service frequently sees landlord’s offer compensation for its failures to carry out a service, which include financial payments in recognition of inconvenience and distress. The Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance expressly states that compensation should be considered for these factors in relevant circumstances.
  7. On the basis of the landlord’s policy, it appears that, although the complaint was partially upheld at stage one, the landlord did not consider offering compensation as a means of redressing its errors. This was unreasonable and failed to follow the Dispute Resolution Principle to ‘put things right’ which includes considering financial compensation where appropriate.

 

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
    1. repairs to the porch roof of the resident’s property;
    2. the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Reasons

  1. Whilst there were complications with the repair work because the landlord required the permission of the neighbour, this did not abrogate its repairing obligations. It took three months to write to the neighbour and it then failed to follow this up or attempt to contact the neighbour in other ways. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident, giving few or very limited explanations as to the delays, and as to how it would try to resolve matters.  There is no evidence provided in relation to the extent of the repair work; the asbestos and how it would be removed; or any temporary repairs that could have taken place. The repair work had still not been carried out by January 2021, six months after first being reported.
  2. The landlord’s formal complaint responses were poor. They offered no explanations, apologies or solutions despite the fact the first stage partially upheld the complaint. Both responses failed to address the resident’s concerns about the asbestos and the lack of communication.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. pay the resident £300 compensation in recognition of: the delays in carrying out the repair; poor communication; the resident having to consistently chase matters; not providing any proposed solution to the issue; and poor complaint handling.
    2. if the repair remains outstanding, draw up and provide to the resident, an action plan (including timescales) with proposals for resolving the matter.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1. consider how it can ensure improved communication with residents when carrying out its repairs service. It should consider staff training on the need to liaise regularly and keep residents informed;
    2. provide further complaint handling training to its staff and consider using the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and Complaint Handling Code as a basis for this training.