Birmingham City Council (202347195)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347195

Birmingham City Council

29 October 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. A repair to a fence in the resident’s garden.
3. The resident’s requests for aids and adaptations.
4. The resident’s request for a move to a more suitable property.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. He has resided at the property, a 3-bedroom house, with his partner and 3 young children since 2022.
The landlord’s records show it is aware the resident has vulnerabilities and that he was awarded his current property, which is adapted, due to physical health conditions, although this Service has not seen specific details regarding these.

Summary of events

Records show the landlord raised a works order on 28 November 2022 after the resident reported “leaking throughout the property causing damp and mould”. The order was given a 7-day priority, but it was recorded as having been cancelled by the tenant on 13 December 2022 due to “no access”. Repair records show over 10 more repair orders relating to reported damp and mould were raised between then and September 2024.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 August 2023 to log a complaint. The landlord’s records of the call show it understood the complaint to be about:
1. A repair (unspecified) that had been outstanding for the past 8 months.
2. A damp inspection was carried out in January 2023, although it had been booked for earlier. The resident was advised by the operative that his property was “really bad” and that, to solve the apparent damp issue, he would need to move out of the property for “extensive work” to take place. However, follow-on works were then apparently cancelled.
3. Further jobs “keep on getting booked” and operatives provided the resident with feedback while attending but he then did not hear anything further. He had since been advised the landlord would “be in contact” but requested confirmation of an actual appointment.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 31 August 2023. It understood the complaint to be regarding damp and mould issues in the property and made the following comments and findings:
1. Regarding damp and mould, it stated its contractor had advised “the repair” (again unspecified) was due to be completed by 26 September 2023. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to do the repairs and advised it would now monitor their progress until completion.
2. It confirmed it considered the resident’s complaint to be “justified” but advised him how to request a further review and escalate the complaint if he remained unhappy with its response.
On 29 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to request a move to a “suitable property with 2 reception room(s) downstairs” and 3 upstairs bedrooms. He advised that temporary accommodation was not suitable for him as he was “extremely vulnerable”. Notes of the call appear to have been added to the resident’s complaint case.
The resident and landlord discussed the complaint further on 6 December 2023. The landlord’s notes of the call referenced 2 work orders raised in November 2023 regarding damp and mould in the downstairs hall and living room of the property. The resident advised he had been unable to sleep in his bedroom as it was “extremely mouldy with black mould”. He also reported that floorboards on the stairs were mouldy and loose and highlighted his vulnerability due to mobility issues. The landlord noted that, as a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted an in-depth damp inspection to be carried out and for the damp issues to be resolved. He also requested a decant to temporary accommodation while repairs took place as he was disabled.
Records show the resident chased an update on the complaint on 14 December 2023 and 9 January 2024. Landlord notes of the latter call identified that its stage 2 complaint response was 11 days overdue at this time.
The resident again requested an update on 23 January 2024. Internal records show the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 the same day. It also emailed the resident to acknowledge his escalation request. It advised it would aim to provide its stage 2 response by 2 February 2024 and its response would consider the following:
1. The ongoing damp and mould problem within the property.
2. That the resident wanted to be decanted while repairs were undertaken.
3. That the resident wanted a permanent move as he did not consider his current property was suitable.
On 29 February 2024, a support worker contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf, asking for an update on the complaint and reporting that they had visited the property and observed damp in the living room, children’s bedroom and kitchen. They stated the resident appeared to be appropriately trying to prevent the mould – ventilating and heating the property – but mould continued to form and was getting worse. They raised concerns over health implications for the resident’s young children and the impact of the situation on his wife, who had epilepsy. There is no evidence the landlord responded, but it noted internally that its complaint response was 2 months overdue.
Landlord records show the resident made further contact chasing its stage 2 response on 4, 12, 19 and 26 March 2024. A further call back request on 28 March 2024 noted the resident had called to state damp and mould was still affecting every downstairs room, and one room upstairs. It also noted he had reported that water seeped into the property through the front wall when it rained, and the problems had been ongoing for over a year.
The resident chased the landlord several times on 23 and 25 April 2024. Records show it responded via email on 26 April 2024. It referred to a conversation with the resident earlier that day and apologised for “the delays in dealing with (his) complaint”. It stated that, “as agreed”, it would address:
1. Outstanding repairs to rectify the damp and mould issues.
2. Mobility aids required at the property.
3. A lack of fencing to the right hand side of the resident’s back garden.

It asked the resident to provide photos of “the damage, fencing and staircase” and advised it would provide a further update by 1 May 2024.

Following contact from the resident, this Service also wrote to the landlord asking it to provide its stage 2 complaint response. It was given a deadline of 6 May 2024 (although this was a Bank Holiday).
On 7 May 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the “prolonged delay” in completing its review of the complaint and for the fact the resident had had to chase it “on several occasions” and contact this Service. It acknowledged this was unacceptable, not in keeping with its complaint policy and further apologised for the “impact this has had on (the resident and his family)”. It noted it had spoken with the resident on 26 April 2024 and went on to address the points raised in that conversation:
1. Outstanding repairs to rectify the damp and mould – it understood an inspection had taken place recently (it did not refer to a specific date) and that the resident advised he had been told that works would be carried out by a third party. However, he had received no further contact. It advised it had spoken to its contractor but was “still awaiting the update”, although it hoped to receive one by 8 May 2024. The landlord would ensure the resident was updated regarding the works. It reiterated this aspect of the complaint was upheld as “the damp and mould has not been fully resolved” and the resident was still waiting for works to take place.
2. Mobility aids required at the property – it understood the resident believed that, when moving into the property, he had been told that adaptations would be undertaken. However, these had not been done and as a result, he felt unable to fully access his home due to the lack of a handrail on the stairs and an unsuitable shower. The landlord advised it had therefore requested for an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment to be carried out and he would be contacted regarding an appointment.
3. Lack of fencing in the back garden – it understood the resident had advised that part or all the fence in the rear garden was missing and this had been the case since he moved in. He wanted this reinstating for safety reasons. It advised a works order had been raised and this should be completed by 19 June 2024, although it clarified that 2 visits would be required.
4. It advised it would monitor the progress of both the OT assessment and fence repair. It apologised again for the “delay in these matters” and hoped the actions it had set out would reassure the resident it was “working to resolve (his) complaint”. It clarified the complaint procedure was now finished, and the resident could contact this Service if he was unhappy.
Records show the order to repair the resident’s fence was cancelled on 10 June 2024. A note on the repair records stated that the owner occupier next door “would hold responsibility for the boundary”.
Internal landlord correspondence indicates that, on 3 July 2024, the resident’s housing application was closed as further supporting documentation had not been supplied following an on-line application made on 18 March 2024. The correspondence stated the resident was informed of this writing.
On 25 September 2024, the landlord raised a new order for a damp and mould inspection, with a target date of 14 October 2024. It stated the inspection should “identify the root cause and produce a report”.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 15 October 2024 to request an update on the damp and mould inspection. It responded on 21 October 2024 and stated its contractor had been due to “commence damp and mould work” on 9 October 2024 but the resident had refused access, and the works had been cancelled.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord has provided information regarding further repairs requested by the resident both during and following the conclusion of its complaints procedure. These include a repair and/or replacement of a bathroom sink, which appears to have caused some dispute as to whether the repair should be rechargeable, and a request for the complete renewal of the bathroom. As there is no evidence these matters were raised with the landlord as part of the complaint referred to the Ombudsman, they will not be considered here. If the resident is unhappy about the actions the landlord has or has not taken, he would need to raise a new complaint to allow it the opportunity to carry out an investigation and provide a response in line with its procedures.
The resident has also referred to several health conditions which he states have been impacted on by the ongoing repair issues, including his wife and children’s health. While we understand the resident’s concerns, 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.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays in addressing and resolving the reported damp and mould issues at the property. In its stage 1 complaint response, provided in August 2023, the landlord apologised for “the length of time…taken to do the repairs” and considered the resident’s complaint was “justified”. However, it did not provide any details regarding what they were or when they should have been completed. It reasonably advised it would monitor progress of the repairs, but it did not offer the resident any compensation or show it had considered any distress, inconvenience or disruption that the delays may have caused.
In its stage 2 complaint response, sent in May 2024, the landlord again upheld the complaint as “the damp and mould has not been fully resolved” and works remained outstanding. It referred to a recent inspection having been carried out but did not outline any findings made and again did not clarify what the outstanding repair works entailed or when they would take place, simply advising it was awaiting an update from its contractors. It apologised for the “delay in these matters” (which included other aspects of his complaint) but offered no further redress.
It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged there were repair delays regarding the reported damp and mould and offered apologies for this at both stages of its complaint response. However, the lack of detail within both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses was unacceptable, with no indication given of how long the delays were or which works the landlord considered had been delayed and remained incomplete at the time of each respective response. The complaint responses were too vague, and this effectively meant it was unclear precisely what it was apologising for at each stage.
From the evidence seen by this investigation, the resident raised concerns regarding damp and mould within days of moving into the property in November 2022 and the landlord accepted this “had not been fully resolved” by May 2024. Records evidence that it raised at least 10 repair orders related to damp and mould between December 2022 and April 2024. This indicates it did take some appropriate steps to try and resolve the reported issues.
It is also acknowledged that some repair orders raised by the landlord appear to have been cancelled after operatives were unable to gain access or the resident failed to respond to calling cards. However, while it may have been the landlord’s practice to cancel work orders when residents do not respond to calling cards, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was not reasonable to do so after one missed appointment. It could have taken additional steps to call the resident and confirm he would be at home during a re-arranged appointment, or to reiterate why it was important to obtain access. Taking additional steps prior to cancelling the orders would have been best practice.
Whether orders were cancelled or not, the landlord was unable to absolve itself of its legal obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the property in a good state of repair, free from the risk of hazards, and safe from personal injury arising from a known defect. Cancelling and re-raising orders played a part in what was a clearly excessive length of time for the issues to have remained unresolved and which would have likely had a significant impact on the resident, whom the landlord knew to be vulnerable.
Overall, the landlord’s repair records do not indicate a joined-up approach to resolving the damp and mould problems, with records showing contractors attending on more than one occasion and either not being able to complete the booked repair or only carrying out some of the expected work. While repair notes from January 2024 refer to previous works to inject the walls as having “failed” and there was “no mould work required”, in November 2023 rising damp had apparently been identified in the property, indicating a degree of confusion. It would have been helpful if the landlord had considered taking additional steps such as arranging for a single point of contact for the resident, to clarify his contact preferences or to agree a schedule of works and dates with him.
Based on the information available, the landlord cannot demonstrate that it clearly understands how the resident’s property is affected by the reported damp and mould or what may be causing it. This impression is reinforced by its September 2024 order for a new damp and mould inspection which would “identify the root cause (of the damp and mould) and produce a report”. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the causes of issues such as leaks, damp and mould can be difficult to identify and isolate, that the landlord appears not to have identified the cause(s) 22 months after the resident first raised the issue is unacceptable and indicates poor oversight of the repairs process.
There also appears to be gaps within the repair records, given that reference is made to at least 2 damp and mould surveys being carried out at the property which are not included within its records. The lack of information regarding appointments and repairs carried out by contractors was a theme identified within the Ombudsman’s special report into the landlord (January 2023), so it is of concern to see similar practices enduring in this case.
The landlord’s failure to identify the cause of, and resolve, the damp and mould is compounded by the fact it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the fact he has young children in the property. Records show the resident raised concerns about the potential impact of damp and mould on the health of his children, concerns which were echoed by his support worker. There is no evidence the landlord replied to, or even acknowledged, the support worker or that it considered the resident’s concerns regarding his family’s health at any stage of the process. When the resident advised he was unable to use certain rooms in the property, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to take the reports seriously and carry out further investigations, such as completing a home visit or a risk assessment. Its lack of action was inappropriate and means the landlord did not treat the resident fairly.
In an update to this Service, the landlord advised that damp and mould work had been scheduled for 9 October 2024, but the resident refused access. While it is positive the landlord had made an appointment and unfortunate that the resident did not allow works to go ahead, it again failed to provide any details regarding what the work entailed. It also did not provide clarity, as had been requested by the Ombudsman, regarding whether a further damp survey had been carried out. The landlord’s inability to provide full details of works it scheduled or undertook, either within correspondence or its own repair records, is a consistent and unacceptable theme throughout this case.
While it is accepted some delays appear to have been caused by the resident not providing access or refusing work, the landlord cannot evidence it has taken appropriate steps to investigate and resolve the damp and mould issues in the resident’s property in a reasonable timeframe. It is a significant concern that 23 months have now passed since the resident’s first report and the repair situation remains unclear and the damp and mould unresolved.
While the apologies offered at stages 1 and 2 of its complaint procedure were appropriate, they did not go far enough in terms of amounting to reasonable redress at either stage. It was unreasonable that it failed to take either opportunity to try and “put things right” for the resident by considering whether further redress, such as compensation, would have better reflected the distress and inconvenience the delays had caused.
Our Special Investigation (Paragraph 49) report into the landlord (published in January 2023) raised concerns over the landlord’s failure to offer compensation to residents as part of its complaint process. The report noted that despite amending its complaints policy in response to previous orders by the Ombudsman, the landlord still unfairly placed an onus on residents to “claim” compensation when this should have been routinely considered during a fairly conducted complaints process. It is of particular concern here that its stage 2 response, issued over a year after the Ombudsman made recommendations for the landlord to review its approach and complaints/compensations policies, the same practices appear to be in operation.
The evidence shows it is still unreasonably failing to offer appropriate redress when service failures have been identified. Considering the delays in progressing the repairs and processing and issuing its stage 2 response, the landlord should have identified that further redress was appropriate. That it did not do so was a further failing. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to carry out a further review regarding how it assesses and awards compensation following acknowledged repair failures.
Taking into consideration the above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. Orders have been made to pay the resident compensation proportionate to the delays he has experienced as a result of its handling of the repairs and for it to arrange a full damp and mould survey of the whole property and an action plan for any repairs that are identified, both of which it should provide to this Service.

The landlord’s handling of a repair to a fence in the resident’s garden

This investigation has not seen evidence of the resident raising concerns over the condition of his garden fence prior to discussing his complaint escalation request with the landlord on 26 April 2024. This Service has not seen details of this call, so it is not possible to determine whether the landlord’s assessment of the conversation was accurate, but its stage 2 complaint response referred to “part or all of the fence in the rear garden” being missing.
Records show a repair order was raised on 6 May 2024 regarding a “fence post/fence panel missing” on the right hand side of the garden and providing a completion target date of 19 June 2024. It reiterated this date to the resident in its complaint response. The landlord’s actions at this point were reasonable.
However, it is unclear from the repair records when, or if, the landlord attended to assess the condition of the fence and establish what the precise nature of the repair was. An update on 29 May 2024 alludes to a visit being carried out by a supervisor but there are no details regarding this visit or any further repair information. This is not appropriate and again calls into question the quality of the landlord’s record keeping and monitoring of the repair process.
Regardless of what repair was ultimately required, records show the landlord then cancelled the order on 10 June 2024. Its records indicate it carried out an address check on 4 June 2024 and determined that the resident’s next door neighbour “holds responsibility for the boundary (with the resident)”. While this Service has seen a map of the neighbouring property with a shaded area and marked boundary, there are no notes or explanations regarding what this shows. There is also no evidence of further enquiries made or any advice the landlord took before it satisfied itself it had no responsibility to repair the fence. This was not appropriate and again points to poor record keeping and failure to ensure it has a coherent audit trail for justifying its actions and decisions.
It was unreasonable that it failed to establish who was responsible for the fence before it advised the resident the issue would be completed by 19 June 2024. This unfairly raised the resident’s expectations before it then cancelled the order. If there was any suggestion that responsibility for the fence repair lay elsewhere, the landlord should have either established this prior to raising an order and committing to the repair in writing, or otherwise advised the resident that it needed to make further enquiries.
While it may have been entitled to cancel the repair, it is of concern that there is no evidence the landlord gave any further consideration as to how the issue may have been affecting its own property and by extension its own tenants. This investigation has also seen no evidence that the landlord corresponded with the resident regarding the cancellation, or whether he was provided with any explanation. The landlord has not evidenced it acted reasonably or fairly.
Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord gave any consideration as to whether it could help the resident with resolving the issue and it appears to have effectively left him to resolve the matter himself. The Ombudsman would expect to see the landlord at least consider contacting the neighbour regarding any repair (as above, it is still unclear what the condition of the fence is) or offer to liaise with them on the resident’s behalf. Its failure to evidence any further actions after cancelling the repair is unacceptable and meant it did not treat the resident fairly. This failure is again particularly concerning given the resident’s known vulnerabilities and the fact the initial reports raised concerns about the safety of his children when using the garden area bordered by the fence.
Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding the fence repair. Orders have been made to pay the resident an appropriate amount of compensation, to provide this Service with further details regarding the condition of the fence and to carry out a review of the case to establish if there are any further steps it can take to support the resident and ensure the neighbour progresses any required repairs in a timely manner.

The resident’s request for aids and adaptations to be installed at the property

There is no evidence the resident raised any concerns regarding aids and adaptations in the property prior to his April 2024 conversation with the landlord regarding his complaint. Although there is again no contemporaneous note of the call, the landlord appeared to respond reasonably by adding the issue to the complaint and stated it would address the matter at stage 2.
However, it is unclear precisely which aids and/or adaptations the landlord understood the resident to be requesting and there is no evidence that it sought clarification of this prior to providing its response. This is again indicative of poor record keeping by the landlord. Within its complaint response there was no evidence of any investigation regarding any requests the resident had made. While the landlord may have felt there was no evidence of service failure – and, as above, this Service has not seen evidence that the resident had raised the matter before April 2024 – it should have made its findings clear. Instead, the landlord simply advised that it would be in touch with him later to arrange an OT assessment. It also stated it would monitor this progress.
At this stage, evidence indicates the landlord’s response was reasonable. It appeared to become aware of the issue in April 2024 and provided him with a response, with a reasonable action plan, the following month.
However, to date the landlord has not been able to evidence that such an assessment has been carried out. When providing information to this investigation in early October 2024, the landlord confirmed it had not yet carried out an assessment. This means around 5 months has passed since the landlord advised it would arrange – and monitor the progress of – an assessment. It is unclear why an assessment has not been arranged and this therefore appears to be an unreasonable and avoidable delay.
As a local authority, it is appreciated that carrying out an OT assessment will fall under the remit of another service area. However, there is no evidence of when it made a referral or any explanation regarding any delays that may have been outside of the housing department’s control. The landlord’s failure to arrange an assessment means it failed to adhere to the steps it set out within its final complaint response and unfairly raised the resident’s expectations. It will also have likely caused confusion and further frustration for a vulnerable resident. This is not acceptable.
Overall, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding aids and adaptations. Orders have been made for the landlord to compensate the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused and for it to provide an update to this Service regarding the steps it has taken to arrange an OT assessment and what it will do to ensure one takes place within the next 2 months.

The resident’s request for a move to a more suitable property

This investigation has not seen any evidence that the resident requested a permanent move prior to his complaint escalation request. This was submitted in November 2023, when he stated a temporary move (while repairs were carried out), would be unsuitable due to his vulnerabilities.
While details of the resident’s request were added to his complaint case, there is no evidence the landlord immediately took action to address it. This was unreasonable. As the landlord was aware the resident had certain vulnerabilities, the Ombudsman would have expected it to contact him, to find out more about his reasons for wanting to move and establish if he needed further assistance with making an application, or other housing support and/or advice. Although the landlord treated his request as being part of his ongoing complaint, there was nothing to prevent it from progressing a rehousing request and responding via its complaint investigation simultaneously and it was unreasonable that it did not appear to have done so.
The landlord then acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request – and his request to move properties – in February 2024 and advised it would respond within its stage 2 response. However, records show it then spoke to the resident regarding the complaint again in April 2024 and his request to move was not listed as one of the issues it had agreed to address.
As a result, this investigation has not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request in any way, either as part of its complaint response or otherwise. This was not appropriate and ultimately means the landlord is unable to evidence that it took any steps to respond to or progress the resident’s request to move to alternative accommodation.
While its records do indicate the resident submitted a rehousing application via its website in March 2024, on the grounds that his property was in a state of disrepair, there is no evidence this was prompted by any action or support from the landlord. Records also show the application was cancelled 4 months later as the resident did not supply supporting evidence. Although internal landlord correspondence indicated the resident had been asked to provide this, our investigation has not seen evidence of correspondence between the landlord and the resident regarding his application, other than the July 2024 letter advising the application was closed.
While the landlord was entitled to close the application if further information was required and had not been provided, its cancellation letter is the only evidence seen of it responding to the resident’s request. Despite being aware of his vulnerabilities – especially since the resident obtained the property due in part to a medical priority – its failure to evidence any attempt to find out more about the reasons he wanted to move or to address the issue within its complaint response was unacceptable and means it cannot show it treated the resident fairly. Moreover, it is of concern it failed to evidence whether it considered his personal circumstances or if any additional support and reasonable adjustment may have been required, particularly prior to cancelling the application.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has found service failure regarding the landlord’s response to his request for a move to a more suitable property. Orders have been made for the landlord to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience its response to his request would have caused and for it to contact him and identify whether it can offer any further support regarding his application for rehousing or alternative housing advice.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Although it acknowledged repair delays regarding the damp and mould in both its stage 1 and 2 responses, set out actions it planned to take going forward and provided apologies, neither response contained any explanation regarding why the delays had occurred. There was no indication of any learning from the complaint to ensure the same service failures did not arise again and the responses also lacked proper consideration of the impact outstanding repair issues may have had on the resident and his family.
Despite acknowledging the repair delay and failure to send its stage 2 response in accordance with its complaint procedure, the landlord did not offer the resident any redress above an apology. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that when a resident complains and something goes wrong, we expect the landlord to “put things right” and remedy any impact on the resident. As noted above when considering its repair handling, the landlord missed an opportunity to provide more appropriate redress for its poor complaint handling.
The landlord’s complaint responses took the same approach to other issues raised, regarding the fence and request for aids and adaptations in the property, with just an update on potential future actions and no indication given that any kind of investigation had taken place. This is not appropriate and is indicative of concerns raised within the Ombudsman’s special investigation regarding the quality of the landlord’s complaint handling. It is of concern to identify the same problems within this case.
Prior to issuing the final complaint response, there was an unexplained 2 month delay in processing the resident’s escalation request and, once this had been done, he still had cause to chase the landlord for updates on multiple occasions. Records show him contacting the landlord at least 10 times between December 2023 and April 2024, with callback requests appearing to go unanswered despite Customer Service advisers noting the complaint response was overdue and that the resident was frustrated and distressed. The landlord should have been more proactive in providing updates regarding any delay in issuing the complaint but, failing that, it should have at least responded to the resident’s calls. That it cannot evidence it did so is unacceptable and clearly caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
There also appeared to confusion regarding the issues that would be responded to within the final complaint response. Records of the landlord’s call with the resident in February 2024 show it agreed to address his requests for a temporary move while repairs were undertaken and for a permanent move. However, following a further call, its email of 26 April 2024 made no reference to these. Nor did its final complaint response. If the landlord’s understanding of the complaint had changed – or if the resident had agreed for some issues to be included and others left out – this should be documented. In the absence of this, the landlord appears to have failed to appropriately address all concerns raised and as a result cannot demonstrate it treated the resident fairly.
The landlord also failed to follow-up on the actions it set out in both its stage 1 and 2 responses, with no evidence it effectively oversaw or provided updates regarding either the promised repairs or with arranging an OT assessment. This was not appropriate and indicates issues with how it monitors the commitments it makes within its complaint responses. It also means the landlord missed the opportunity to restore some trust in the tenant/landlord relationship.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaints. The landlord did not consistently comply with its own policy. This led to prolonged delays and caused frustration for the resident, who spent time and effort chasing the landlord for updates. It failed at several opportunities to address the issues raised by the resident which contributed to the escalation of the complaints and demonstrated a lack of understanding and complaint management. Although service failures were identified and acknowledged, the landlord did not confirm how it would learn from these or offer any form of redress to the resident. This raises concern with the landlord’s ability to utilise the complaint process to address the failures identified.

Special report on Birmingham City Council

In January 2023, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord highlighting concerns with its repairs, record keeping, complaint handling, and compensation. The report recommended that the landlord independently review those areas and develop an action plan based on the findings.
While the landlord has engaged with the Ombudsman and progress has been made, similar failings have been identified in this report. Therefore, the landlord should consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s special report of January 2023. A relevant order is made later in respect of this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration regarding the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Maladministration regarding the repair to the fence in the resident’s garden.
3. Service failure regarding the resident’s request for aids and adaptations.
4. Maladministration regarding the resident’s request for a move to a more suitable property.
5. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

Almost 2 years since the resident first reported issues with damp and mould in the property, the issue remains outstanding, and the landlord’s repair records do not provide a comprehensive overview of the actions it has taken in response. It remains unclear what the cause of the damp and mould is, the extent it is affecting the property or what steps the landlord is taking to resolve the issue. There is also insufficient evidence it considered how the matter would affect the resident, particularly in light of his and his family’s vulnerabilities.
While the landlord may have been entitled to cancel the fence repair, it did not do so reasonably. There is no evidence it advised the resident of the cancellation or the reason for it, or that it considered how the repair could be processed or whether the resident required any support or assistance.
There is no evidence the landlord is aware of the nature of the aids and adaptations the resident states he needs in his property. While it reasonably advised in its stage 2 complaint response that it would arrange for an OT assessment to be carried out, 5 months on there is no evidence it has done so.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request to move to new accommodation within a reasonable timeframe. It treated the matter as a complaint and did not respond separately, but then also failed to address the issue within its final complaint response. When the resident did make an application, this was cancelled without apparent consideration as to whether the resident needed additional support.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was not escalated within an appropriate timeframe and, once it was, it was subsequently issued significantly outside its target timeframe. The quality of the response at both stages was poor, with little indication investigations were carried out, and it failed at both stages to offer appropriate redress for the failings it identified.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident £1800 compensation directly, rather than to his rent account. This consists of the following amounts to reflect distress and inconvenience caused:
  1. £800 to reflect its response to the reported damp and mould.
  2. £300 regarding its handling of the fence repair.
  3. £250 regarding its handling of the request for aids and adaptations.
  4. £150 for its response to the resident’s request for a transfer.
  5. £300 to reflect its poor complaint handling.
2. Provide an update to this Service which sets out the actions it has taken so far to arrange an OT assessment. It should also contact the resident to set a date for an assessment to take place within the next 2 months.
3. Contact the resident regarding his rehousing request and establish if he requires any assistance with resubmitting his application and if there is any further support or housing advice he requires.
The landlord is also ordered to, within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Arrange a full damp and mould survey of the whole property and provide this Service with a copy of the report. It should also draw up an action plan for the completion of any identified repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The action plan should also be shared with this Service.
2. Carry out an inspection of the resident’s fence. It should also complete a review of the case with the aim of establishing if any lessons can be learned and if there are further steps it could take to assist with the repair being progressed in a timely manner. It should provide this Service with the findings of both its inspection and the case review.
Under paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is also ordered to carry out a further learning review regarding how it assesses and awards compensation following acknowledged service failures. The review should include identifying the number of stage 2 complaints where the landlord upheld the complaint but did not offer compensation. A sample of 20% of those cases should then be reviewed by the landlord to identify whether compensation should have been offered in line with its policy. The landlord should consider what appropriate action to take in those cases and whether it should expand its review. The completed review should be shared with this Service within 12 weeks of the date of this report.