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

Birmingham City Council (202341494)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341494

Birmingham City Council

28 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the boiler.
    2. Asbestos in the property.
    3. Reports of damp and mould.
    4. Delays in plastering work in the kitchen.
    5. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy. She lives in the 2-bedroom terraced house with her partner and 2 children. There are no vulnerabilities recorded but the landlord is aware of vulnerabilities for the resident’s husband. The resident has stated her elderly mother – who is in poor health – stays at the property occasionally.
  2. The landlord’s evidence confirms the resident reported boiler repairs throughout March to July 2023. These were mainly for the loss of heating or hot water, but there were also reports of boiler leaks. Although the landlord attended and carried out repairs, the problems continued, and the leaks affected the kitchen ceiling. Alongside the heating issues, the resident also reported mould, which was predominantly in the bathroom.
  3. Due to the time taken to fully repair the boiler, the resident raised a complaint via her MP on 11 September 2023. There was also a concern raised relating to asbestos in the kitchen that had not been sealed.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 19 December 2023. It confirmed all boiler repairs had been completed; the asbestos test had been done and the textured coating removed. It explained a new repair was needed for the extractor fan as the contractor failed to request it – the complaint was partially upheld due to this. The landlord confirmed it could not locate any plastering work record and said the resident would need to raise a new job.
  5. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint, and the MP forwarded it to the landlord on 2 January 2024. She was not happy with the response regarding the boiler repairs or the process around the asbestos.
  6. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 25 March 2024. It included the full repair history for the boiler, damp and mould, asbestos and plastering from the start of the tenancy. It also confirmed the timeline of the complaint. The boiler repairs, damp and mould, and the complaint aspect were upheld, but the asbestos and plastering issues were not. On 27 March 2024, the landlord acknowledged it had not delivered a service in line with its policies, and procedures and awarded £425 compensation in recognition of this and the impact on the resident and her family.
  7. On 26 March 2024, the resident told her MP she wanted to escalate her complaint to this Service. She said she deserved the maximum compensation for distress and inconvenience, delays, time spent chasing the landlord, money spent on energy costs, lack of updates and for the landlord ignoring the vulnerability in the household.
  8. On 2 April 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that there was still damp and mould in the property and that an extractor fan had not been fitted. This Service has seen evidence which confirms progress has been made, but work was delayed following a rodent infestation in the loft. The landlord was waiting for this issue to be resolved before the contractor could go back in to complete the ventilation work. The landlord has confirmed this work has not resumed, but the plastering of the kitchen ceiling is scheduled for 5 July 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident refers to a long history of repairs within the property which she is unhappy with. In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (at the time of the complaint), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. While previous repairs may be referred to, this report will focus primarily on the events from January 2023, which is 9 months before the complaint was made in September 2023.
  2. The resident has referred to several health conditions which have been impacted by the ongoing issues. While we do not doubt this, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused. 

Boiler repairs

  1. The landlord’s evidence confirms that when put on notice of an issue with the boiler, its contractors acted in line with the repair policy and attended the same day. On the one occasion it did fail to attend, a new appointment was raised and was completed the following day. On each visit, the contractor identified a problem, completed a repair, and left the system in working order. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord (and its contractor) has complied with the relevant policies and acted appropriately in terms of attending the property within timescale to resolve the problem identified during the visit.
  2. It is acknowledged that the resident experienced boiler issues for many years, and previous complaints have been submitted due to this. Although those complaints are not within the scope of this assessment, it is recognised that the ongoing issues are likely to have contributed to her frustration. Due to the number of components that make up a boiler, it can often be a process of elimination when trying to identify a fault. This was supported by the landlord’s repair records which confirmed the faults identified were not for the same issue and were connected to different components of the boiler. While the Ombudsman does not find a service failure by the landlord, it may have been appropriate for it to have explained this to the resident. This may have reassured the resident that the contractor was responding correctly.
  3. It is noted that although several reports were received, the boiler performance was not escalated or highlighted as a repeat issue; this could have identified the need for a more in-depth investigation. While not a service failure, a recommendation has been made regarding repeat visits for the same issue.
  4. Overall, the Ombudsman does not find any maladministration in the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs. The landlord (and its contractors) complied with policy and attended within reasonable timescales to carry out the necessary repairs to resolve the fault identified during the visit. Although the resident was concerned that the landlord did not take the household vulnerabilities into account, there is no evidence of the resident being left without any heating or hot water for any extended period from 2023 onwards.

Asbestos

  1. The resident asked the landlord if the correct process had been followed, why the kitchen ceiling had not been sealed, and why she had not been told the result sooner. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the correct process was followed but this was not confirmed until the landlord sent its final complaint response.
  2. The landlord confirmed that during the inspection of the ceiling on 13 July 2023, there was no sign of flaking or loose Artex, and as there was no debris on the floor, there was no need for any further work. Although this approach is supported in the landlord’s ‘Asbestos in the home leaflet,’ there is no evidence to confirm if the landlord gave the resident a copy of this leaflet. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable as it should be either providing a copy of, or signposting the resident to, this information to provide reassurance.
  3. Asbestos test results were received on 1 August 2023, and the area was made safe on 10 August 2023, but the landlord did not explain why the resident had not been told the results sooner than she was. The Ombudsman finds it unreasonable that the landlord left questions unanswered. If this information had been provided in the stage 1 complaint response, this may have provided the resident with reassurance that the family had not been exposed to asbestos. The early confirmation may also have stopped this element of the complaint being escalated.
  4. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of asbestos. While the correct testing process was followed, the communication with the resident could have been more proactive and reassuring to limit any fears she may have had. An order of compensation and a recommendation has been made in relation to the communication with residents around this issue.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repair records confirm mould in the bathroom and to windows was reported on 19 May 2023, and work was completed on 13 July 2023. It is noted however that the landlord’s final complaint response did not include reference to this repair. This raises concern with the landlord’s record keeping and the accuracy of the complaint investigation and understanding of the timeframe linked to this issue. As no other information has been provided regarding what this repair entailed, it makes it difficult to determine if the landlord responded appropriately to its repair obligations.
  2. When further reports were received in September 2023, the operative attended in timescale, completed the repairs, and recorded that an extractor fan was “desperately needed in the bathroom”. It is noted that this recommendation was also made 2 years previously, and although not within the scope of this report, this demonstrates the landlord’s failure to act upon a recommendation which may have helped resolve the issue of repeating mould in the bathroom. Although the recommendation was made, there is no evidence the landlord reacted to it. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
  3. The landlord treated the bathroom again in February 2024. The bathroom was then flagged as a concern during a planned damp and mould survey in February 2024, which was part the landlord’s mould programme. Several repairs were identified in a bid to resolve the ongoing issue; however, these were put on hold as the contractor was waiting for feedback as to whether to fully tile the bathroom or install mechanical extraction.
  4. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it upheld this aspect of the complaint due to the ongoing mould and the number of repairs raised. While it acknowledged this failure, it did not provide an explanation as to why the extractor fan had not been installed when it was recommended. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable as this fault may have contributed to the ongoing issues experienced by the resident. It would have also demonstrated a fair and thorough investigation by recognising its failure to respond when the recommendation was made. The landlord subsequently offered £425 in acknowledgement of its service failure. In line with the remedies guidance of this Service, the Ombudsman finds this offer proportionate and within the recommended range for a maladministration finding.
  5. Following the final complaint response, the landlord continued to chase the contractor for updates on the proposed work. The most recent contact confirmed rodents were present in the loft and this had delayed work. The contractor was waiting for that issue to be resolved before resuming work. These events occurred after the end of the landlord’s complaints process so are not the focus of this investigation. However, the landlord and contractor should continue to monitor this to ensure the work is completed as soon as possible.
  6. Overall, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the reports of damp and mould in the property. The landlord failed to follow up on a recommendation which may have helped resolve the mould issue for the resident. This in turn would have reduced the need for the resident to report the ongoing issues and reduced the inconvenience to her and her family. While a finding of maladministration may have been determined, the landlord acknowledged its service failure and offered an appropriate level of compensation to the resident.

Plastering work

  1. The landlord’s internal records confirm the resident informed it of the cracks in the kitchen ceiling on 17 April 2023. The cracks were apparently the result of leaks from the boiler. The resident told the landlord she had contacted a solicitor about the situation and wanted compensation for the emotional distress. The evidence suggests the landlord asked the contractor to attend to rectify the leak, and while this was appropriate, it was not allowed access by the resident who said to go through the solicitor.
  2. A visit on 19 May 2023 confirmed the textured ceiling above the worktop was split with signs of water from a leak from above. The landlord made the appropriate request for the boiler to be checked, and for the ceiling to be repaired. The boiler leak was addressed on 26 May 2023, and a plasterer attended to the ceiling on 13 July 2023.
  3. While the initial inspection was completed within the repair policy timescales, it took a further 8 weeks for the ceiling to be inspected at which point the asbestos check was requested and no repair was carried out. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an unreasonable response time and was not in line with the landlord’s policy which states routine repairs will be attended within 30 days of being reported. It is also a concern that the asbestos check was not requested following the inspection on 19 May 2023.
  4. The landlord told the resident it could not find any reports for plastering work, yet the above repair history was provided to this Service as evidence. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. It is therefore a record keeping concern that the landlord could not find any repairs for plastering and, as such, in the stage 1 complaint response, it asked the resident to raise a new job. This is likely to have contributed to the resident’s frustration which the Ombudsman finds unreasonable.
  5. Following the receipt of her stage 1 complaint response, the resident said she would raise a repair for the plastering. Within the final complaint response, the landlord confirmed this had not been done. It therefore raised an inspection for her. Although in the Ombudsman’s opinion this was the appropriate action to take, it was unreasonable that this approach was not considered at stage 1 to resolve the issue for the resident.
  6. The resident has confirmed that in August 2023, only one side of the ceiling was repaired, and it took until 21 June 2024 for the full ceiling to be removed. This was 14 months from when the resident reported it. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is an unreasonable timeframe to complete the work in full. The prolonged repair is likely to have caused the resident and her family disruption and inconvenience, particularly given their previous concern about the presence of asbestos.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the plastering of the kitchen ceiling. There are record keeping concerns which led to inaccuracies in the landlord’s complaint response. There was an unnecessary delay in the request for the asbestos test which could have been completed 2 months sooner than it was, reducing the disturbance, concern, and inconvenience to the resident and her family. It is also noted that the ceiling repair is not to be completed in full until July 2024, 15 months after the first report. Due to the findings above, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should offer the resident compensation. Further information can be found in the orders section below.

The associated complaint

  1. Once the complaint was received, it took the landlord 42 working days to acknowledge receipt, and 71 working days to provide a response. As such, the landlord failed to comply with the timescales for both the acknowledgement (within 3 working days) and response (within 15 working days). There is no evidence of any contact with the resident or MP while the complaint was ongoing. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable and displays signs of poor communication and complaint management.
  2. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing the response and for the inconvenience caused. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the response lacked detail and did not answer the resident’s questions. For example, it did not explain why it took so long to repair the boiler, and it did not answer the questions regarding the asbestos process. Not addressing these points in full is likely to have contributed to the resident’s frustration and the escalation of the complaint.
  3. The landlord’s response failed to offer reassurance that the resident and her family had not been put at risk from asbestos. In response to the extractor fan, the landlord confirmed a new job would be needed as it had been missed by the contractor. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to take ownership and make the arrangements on behalf of the resident. There is no evidence this was done which the Ombudsman finds unreasonable.
  4. There is further concern in relation to the stage 1 response letter where it appears that the landlord in the main copied the contractor’s response directly into its reply. The response was written in the wrong person, it was worded in note form and included information irrelevant to the resident or the complaint. The landlord did not demonstrate that it followed the guidance from with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code); the response was ineffective and lacking in detail.
  5. Upon receipt of the complaint escalation, the landlord acknowledged it the same day but took 59 working days, and the involvement of this Service, to provide the final response. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will keep the resident informed of any delays, however there was only one update to the MP to apologise for the delay, and this was instigated by the MP. The Ombudsman finds the lack of communication regarding the delay unreasonable.
  6. The landlord missed a final opportunity to provide the detail requested by the resident. The landlord’s final response highlighted several service failures, but it did not follow the principles of this Service by being fair, putting things right and learning from outcomes and failed to offer any compensation or confirm that this was being reviewed. While it is noted the landlord did offer compensation very soon after, it would have been appropriate to advise the resident of this in the final complaint response letter and not later.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. There are concerns regarding the landlord’s complaint management and compliance with the policy and the Code. There was poor communication regarding the delays in the responses which contributed to the inconvenience of the resident (and MP). It is evident from the landlord’s records that it struggled to obtain responses from the contractor at both stages of the complaint, yet it did not confirm how it would manage and learn from this. As a result of the failures identified, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should offer compensation to the resident. Further information can be found in the orders section below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of delays in plastering work in the kitchen.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write to the resident to:
      1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report and confirm how it will learn from these;
      2. update her on its plan for completion of any remaining works required at the property linked to the kitchen ceiling and damp and mould – this should include clear timescales and a point of contact for her to use while the works are ongoing.
    2. Pay £800 in compensation to the resident. This consists of:
      1. £100 for the delays and communication failure relating to the asbestos in the property.
      2. £400 for the delays in plastering of the kitchen ceiling.
      3. £300 for the failures identified with the complaint handling.
  2. The additional compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears that may be owed.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Scheme, within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should carry out a case review. While the review should account for all aspects of the complaint where service failure or maladministration was found, there should be particular focus on the complaint handling and the communication with contractors involved in a complaint. The review should identify the lessons learned from this case and demonstrate how the landlord will implement the necessary improvements.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £425 as agreed in the compensation award letter. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
  2. The landlord should consider reviewing the way in which it communicates with residents in relation to asbestos, including providing copies of the ‘Asbestos in the home’ leaflet as standard. It should set expectations by providing clear timescales for work, and it should offer reassurance to residents around the safety aspects and when it is, and is not, necessary to seal areas.
  3. The landlord should consider developing a performance report which focuses on repeat visits for boiler outages. This may support the landlord in identifying properties where additional investigations are needed.
  4. In a previous report (Ombudsman case reference 202233022), the landlord was asked to consider delivering refresher training to staff responsible for complaint management. While this recommendation will not be repeated, the landlord should consider providing complaint response writing training to relevant staff. The training should refer to the Code and the guidance as to what should be included in a response letter.
  5. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should confirm its intentions regarding the above recommendations to this Service.