Birmingham City Council (202318391)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318391

Birmingham City Council

30 April 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s request to replace windows with polycarbonate sheeting.
2. Repairs appointments at the resident’s property.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of a 3-bedroom end terrace house. He has lived there with his spouse since 2001.
In May, July and October 2021 windows in the property were damaged due to vandalism by other persons living in the area. Whilst repairs were carried out, the resident asked the landlord to install polycarbonate sheet windows to prevent any further breakages. The landlord, however, refused this request.
By late October 2022 another window had been damaged, and a replacement glazed unit was required to be fitted. The fence to the front of the property had also been vandalised. Further, in November 2022 the resident reported mildew on the outside wall to the kitchen which was damaging the brickwork and remedial works needed to be carried out to deal with it.
The resident was unhappy with the way the landlord handled these repairs. There were communication issues with the appointed contractor and appointments were not kept. On 2 December 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the situation.
The landlord responded on 3 January 2023 by offering dates for repairs to be carried out and noting that previous attempts to complete them had been hampered by difficulties accessing the property – the front gate being padlocked. However, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated, maintaining that the contractor was to blame for any delays due to poor communication and missed appointments. He also raised the fact that he had boarded up windows due to the landlord’s refusal to fit the polycarbonate sheeting as requested – and which he referred to as being an unreasonable decision.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 6 June 2023 and its follow up of 30 June 2023, it agreed that the resident had not been notified of all appointments by the contractor. The landlord had had to remind it that dates needed to be sent to the resident in writing by post. However, it maintained that access to the property was often difficult. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience the resident had suffered. It confirmed it was standing by its decision to refuse the installation of the polycarbonate sheet windows for the reasons it had given previously regarding its unsuitability.
The resident was dissatisfied with this response and referred the matter to this Service. By way of remedy, the resident wants the Ombudsman to order the landlord to install the polycarbonate sheet windows. He also wants the landlord to evict the persons living in a local tenancy who are carrying out the vandalism.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The complaint made by the resident related to his repair issues alone. In his escalation request he referred to the landlord’s decision refusing to install the polycarbonate sheet windows. The landlord responded to this and it is therefore reasonable to conclude the issue has been examined through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and can be reviewed by this Service.
However, the resident has also referred to the anti-social behaviour/vandalism by other local tenants. Since referring his repairs complaint to this Service, the resident has asked that the Ombudsman examine why the landlord has not evicted the tenants. He states they are in breach of tenancy due to criminal activities taking place at their property. These were not issues raised in the resident’s complaint and they were not referred or accepted for investigation as part of this matter. These points will not, therefore, be examined in this Report.
Our position is in accordance paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which provides that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Thus, the resident may wish to raise these as a new formal complaint with the landlord in the first instance.

The resident’s request to replace windows with polycarbonate sheeting.

The date the resident made this request to the landlord is not reflected in the records provided. However, there is no suggestion the landlord delayed in providing a decision.
On 5 May 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to explain its refusal. That letter shows that it sought technical advice on the issue. It also attempted to interview staff who had dealt with the resident on a similar request in his previous tenancy.
The landlord mentioned that the current windows met building regulations and its own repairs specifications. It stated that it did not use polycarbonates as a standard material in domestic housing in any of its properties across a wide area.
It also explained that such glazing would “likely contravene British Standards” due to their thermal rate of heat loss and the fact that they let in significantly less light. The landlord was concerned that any guarantees on the windows would be lost by the alterations. Further, it noted that it would have to remove the sheeting at the end of the tenancy and replace it at an additional cost to itself.
The landlord’s reply demonstrates that it looked into the resident’s suggestion – it did not simply dismiss it without consideration. The landlord gave reasons for its stance and took expert opinion into account. Its decision was logical and rational. By way of a compromise, the landlord offered laminated glass which is a stronger version of the glazing used previously.
The landlord’s handling of the request was fair and reasonable, and no service failing has been identified in this regard. On this basis, this Service cannot order the landlord to install the sheeting as requested.
For the sake of completeness, it is noted that the resident disputes this decision for 3 reasons:
1. Firstly, he has been in the property for over 20 years and believes any guarantees on the windows will have expired by now.
2. Secondly, he points out that laminated (strengthened) windows have already been tried in the property but were once again broken by the vandalism of nearby tenants.
3. Thirdly, the cycle of damage and repair is not cost effective to the landlord, and it could avoid this by accepting the resident’s solution.
It is important to recognise at this point that the issue would not have arisen at all if the vandalism had not taken place. Differences of opinion over guarantees, glazing strength, heat loss, and light penetration distract from the real issue here. If the antisocial behaviour were not taking place, those points would be academic. It is easy to understand why the resident’s desired remedy is the eviction of the tenants in question. The damage being caused is significant and, no doubt, expensive for the landlord to continually repair. The resident reasonably reports being frightened by bricks being thrown through his window(s) and he and his spouse are vulnerable in that regard.
Whilst the landlord’s handling of the reports of vandalism is not being examined in this report, a recommendation will be made, however, that the landlord look at the situation from this angle – if it has not already done so. The landlord might reasonably be expected to consider whether there have been any tenancy breaches and whether legal action is justified. It would need to consider any available evidence and liaise with the local police – who have received reports from the resident and are aware of the situation.

Repairs appointments at the resident’s property.

The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of 3 distinct repairs to his property – the replacement of a window; the repair of a fence; the remedy of green mildew and damaged pointing on an outside wall. Specifically, his concern relates to the scheduling and attendance of appointments by the landlord’s contractor.
An appointment was made for a contractor to attend the resident’s property on 16 November 2022 to measure up for the window that had been damaged. This was attended and the resident was told the contractor would return on 2 December 2022 to fit the unit. On that day the resident complains that nobody turned up.
The landlord states that the window was not available when the operative went to collect it from the stockist that morning. The operative unsuccessfully tried to contact the resident by telephone to explain this. The appointment did not go ahead but the resident was unaware as to why not. This was unfortunate, but the resident’s preferred method of communication is by posted letter. He does not wish to be contacted by telephone and the landlord was unable to contact him at short notice to warn him of the position.
The landlord states a follow-on appointment was then made for 12 December 2022, but the gate was padlocked and the operative could not gain access to the property. The landlord accepts, however, that the resident was not told of this appointment in advance to enable him to offer access and this was not the resident’s fault.
The appointment was then rearranged to 22 December 2022 and the resident written to accordingly. The landlord’s records suggest the resident asked for this to be changed to 4 January 2023, but the resident strongly denies this. In any event there was no attendance on either day from the contractor. On 3 January 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident stating the appointment would take place on 18 January 2023 and the repair was carried out on that day.
The fence repair was scheduled for 25 October 2022 but then brought forward to 13 October 22. The resident was not told of this appointment in advance. The operative attended, could not gain access due to the padlocked gate and the repair was marked as cancelled on 19 October 2022. The repair was then raised again with an attendance due on 9 January 2023. Once again, the resident says the contractor failed to show up and the landlord says it did attend but could not gain access due to the padlock. Finally, the repair was undertaken at a rescheduled appointment on 27 February 2023 when the repair was done from the external pavement.
It can be seen that with respect to these 2 repairs that there were a mixture of missed appointments and no access appointments which would have caused delays. Whilst the landlord’s operative might reasonably be expected to attend on the day scheduled, the landlord is hampered if access cannot be gained to the property. If the gate is padlocked and the operative cannot get to the front door to alert the resident of their presence – and they cannot telephone to announce they are there – then it is difficult to see what else the landlord might have done to avoid having to abandon these visits. This comment is not intended as a criticism of the resident’s action in padlocking the gate. He carries this out because of the vandalism he has experienced. However, there is an unintended consequence to this security measure in that genuine visitors cannot approach the property and the landlord cannot be held responsible for that.
With regard to the kitchen wall, the resident noted green mildew growing on it which needed to be treated to prevent damage to the brickwork. An appointment was made for 18 January 2023 which was attended. However, the operative stated that having assessed what was required, a longer attendance would be needed than had been planned. A return visit was therefore necessary on 30 January 2023 when the work was completed. The resident states that sufficient time should have been allocated for the work to be done first time on 18 January 2023 – the repeat attendance being an inconvenience to him and his spouse.
The landlord states that it is not always apparent as to what work is required until an operative attends to look into the repair report. On this occasion a longer period of time was needed. Whilst this was inconvenient to the resident it did not represent a service failing on the landlord’s part. This is because the repair had not been inspected previously and the extent of it was not necessarily known in advance.
In conclusion, the landlord’s handling of these repairs was reasonable save for the missed appointments on 22 December 2022 and 4 January 2023 and the ineffective appointments due to lack of warning to the resident on 13 October and 12 December 2022. In respect of these 4 appointments, the landlord’s service fell below a reasonable standard.
The resident was inconvenienced although it was of short duration. This Service’s Remedies Guidance states that compensation might reasonably be paid where a service failing has inconvenienced a resident. The guidance suggests that compensation of £50 – £100 is appropriate in a situation similar to this one. An order has been made below for compensation to be paid of £100.

The resident’s complaint.

The landlord operates a Comments, Compliments and Complaints Policy which sets out its approach to the handling of complaints. This provides for a 2-stage process. Initially, the landlord commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days of receipt and providing a response within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can ask for their complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the process which is a review. A response is then to be given within 20 working days of the request.
In this case the landlord failed to follow this procedure, which was inappropriate. The complaint was made on 2 December 2022 and no acknowledgement was sent. A stage 1 response was then provided, dated 3 January 2023, which was 23 working days later rather than the aimed for 10 working days. However, it is noted that this included the Christmas and New Year period, and some holidays are included in that timespan.
The resident requested the complaint be escalated on 7 January 2023, but a stage 2 response was not given until 8 June 2023. According to the landlord’s policy the resident should have received this by 3 February 2023. The response was 87 working days late.
The resident was put to time and trouble in pursuing his complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge these failings in its stage 2 response or offer any remedy for them. An order has been made below for compensation of £100 to reflect the impact on the resident of the delay which continued for 5 months.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to replace windows with polycarbonate sheeting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
1. Repairs appointments at the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £200 representing:
1. £100 for service failings
2. £100 for complaint handling.
It should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the Order within 4 weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider what action it could take to address the antisocial behaviour/vandalism being directed towards the resident/his property and to advise him in writing of the outcome of its investigations. If the landlord has already undertaken such an exercise, it is recommended it provide the resident with confirmation of the outcome.