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

Birmingham City Council (201915233)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915233

Birmingham City Council

3 March 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 resident complains about the landlord’s handling of repairs required to the gas fire following on from a gas safety check, and the landlord’s handling of the subsequent formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 26 November 2019 the landlord’s contractors attended to carry out a gas safety check, and the gas fire in the living room was capped due to a leak. This was repaired on 17 December 2019.
  2. The resident made a complaint about the matter on 11 December 2019. The landlord’s record of the complaint (which seems to be a note from a telephone call) sets out that the resident stated that when inspecting the fire, the engineer couldn’t get the pipe off the gas meter, and the resident believed that he must have broken it trying to do so. The resident said that the engineer had told her that he would order a replacement pipe which would take 4-5 days.
  3. The resident said that she called the landlord on 27 November 2019 to follow up, and was advised that the contractor would attend on 28 November 2019. However, no one arrived and she reported that when she called the landlord again about this the following day an engineer attended at 9pm, but did not carry out the repair and said the pipe had to be changed and the flooring had to come up.
  4. The resident explained that when she called the landlord again on 4 December 2019 she was again told that the pipe had to be ordered and would take 4-5 days. Despite being told that she would be called back when she requested to speak to a manager, nobody did so.
  5. The resident called again on 6 December 2019 and was advised that the contractor would attend on 9 December 2019 but again no one arrived. The resident called the landlord again on 10 December 2019 and after speaking with the repair team, she spoke directly to the contractor who stated that it was not the service that was carrying out the repair. She called the landlord again on 11 December 2019 (the same day she logged the complaint) and was given an appointment for 17 December 2019. The resident was unhappy that the matter was taking so long, and that she did not know what was happening.
  6. The landlord provided a response dated 20 December 2019 which apologised that the standard of service received was not at the expected level. It said that contractors were aware of the need to contact residents in the event of non-attendance/delays but regrettably this had not happened. The landlord said that the manager had been made aware of the issue to try and prevent a future occurrence, and the contractor apologised for the missed appointments. The contractor had also said that ‘unfortunately, after the restrictor was fitted further work was required to re-pipe.” It was noted that the repair was completed on 17 December 2019.
  7. The resident requested a review of the complaint around mid-January 2020, stating that while the landlord had said that a restrictor was fitted this was not the case: no restrictor had been fitted. In addition, three appointments were missed. The landlord’s record states that the resident said “She was told that the pipe does not have to be ordered from one person however she is being told this constantly when she rings up the repairs department. She would like somebody to come back out and make the necessary repairs as she is still experiencing the same problems as she did when she first complained.”
  8. The landlord responded on 17 February 2020 stating that it had already provided a detailed response and a full apology from the contractor. It said that the resident had not provided any further details of discrepancies. It noted that the contractor had spoken with the resident on 11 December 2020 and completed the repair on 17 December 2019. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Repair

  1. Under the section dealing with gas safety checks, the landlord’s repairs policy states “All repairs needed to heating appliances and cookers provided by the City Council will be reported to the repairs partner and they will arrange to place the appropriate order with the Gas Service and Appliance Maintenance Contractors.”
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy also sets out the landlord’s response times to repairs, stating that emergency repairs (where there was a danger of injury or damage to the property) would be attended to within two hours of the instruction being issued to the contractor. Urgent repairs (those that were that are concerned with protecting health and safety or the security of the property) would be completed within one, three or seven working days based on the requirements of Right to Repair Regulations 1994. Routine repairs were targeted to be completed within 30 days of them being reported.
  3. The Ombudsman has seen a copy of the gas safety inspection documentation from 26 November 2019, which shows that a leak from the restrictor had been found in the gas fire in the living room and so the appliance had been capped. The boiler was left operational.
  4. The landlord’s responses to the complaint were extremely brief and provide little in the way of examination of the issues. However, in response to this investigation, the landlord has explained to the Ombudsman that “…the process for follow on repairs to appliances is that a follow on job is raised for reattendance to rectify any issues, a letter is sent to the tenant with an appointment for attendance to carry out the follow on works.”
  5. It has stated that the follow-on work was raised on its system on 27 November 2019, before the resident contacted the call centre to report the issue. A repair order was then raised on 29 November 2019 as a day attendance. Its contractor attended and replaced the restrictor elbow head but noted that a re-pipe was required. The landlord has explained “Unfortunately, he completed the job in error on his PDA and therefore, this was not picked up by the back office team as requiring a follow-on call. It was only when the tenant rang to chase it up that the error was noted and the job was re-opened on our system and re-allocated to an engineer.”
  6. The landlord states that a contractor then attended on 6 December 2019 but this was “no access”. The resident then contacted the call centre, and a further appointment was made for 9 December 2019, and the contractor that attended that day found that a re-pipe was required which would require a longer appointment. The landlord states “Due to the length of time this repair would require we contacted the tenant on 11/12 and agreed an appointment with her for 17/12. We attended on this date and completed the repair.” The landlord has said that heating and hot water were available at the property for the whole period via the central heating system.
  7. While this explanation is helpful, it is unclear why it was not included in the response to the complaint. In addition, the Ombudsman has asked the landlord for record of the repair, and would expect that as the professional organisation with resources available to it, it should be in a position to provide adequate evidence of its actions.
  8. However, the landlord has only been able to provide two repair records in relation to the matter. The first was raised on 28 November 2019 and states “PS gas pipe loose or defective”. No other information about this job is included, and there is no record of the restrictor elbow head being replaced. A second repair was raised on 10 December 2019 as a follow on/finish repair, and only states “Awaiting appointment”. It does also include a note “missed appointment” but it is not clear if this relates to a missed appointment by the contractor, or “no access”.
  9. There is no evidence that supports the landlord’s assertion that an appointment was made for and attended on 6 December 2019 with “no access”, or that a contractor attended on 9 December 2019 and found that a re-pipe was required. It is also unclear why a re-pipe was found to be required on 9 December 2019, as according to the landlord’s own account, it had already been noted that a re-pipe was required at the 29 November 2019 attendance.
  10. Conversely, the resident has provided the Ombudsman with detailed notes that she made of each contact with the landlord. These record that when she contacted the landlord on 27 November 2019 she was told that someone would attend the following day, but no one did. The contractor did then attend on 29 November 2019 when she chased this up, but her note from that day records “engineer attended and told me the flooring and floorboards had to come up to replace the gas pipe from the gas meter to the restrictor” which was a large job and he would report this back to the landlord. The resident has stated that the contractor was only there for a few minutes and did not replace the restrictor elbow head.
  11. The notes state that when the resident chased this up on 4 December 2019 she was told that the pipe needed to be ordered, and that someone would call her back, but no one did. On 5 December 2019 the resident recorded that she chased the landlord again and was told that a contractor would attend that day, but no one did. When she chased this up on 6 December 2019, she was told that in fact the pipe did not need to be ordered and contractors would attend on 9 December 2019, however no one did.
  12. The resident’s records show that she chased both the landlord and the contractor on 10 December 2019, and was told by the contractor that it had attended the previous day but no one was home. The resident notes that no one came, and she received no text, call or card. On 11 December 2019 the resident called the landlord again and was put through to the contractor who told her that the works would be carried out on 17 December 2019.
  13. The Ombudsman can only base its decisions on the documentary evidence provided to it by the parties. Given that the resident put this version of events to the landlord in her complaint and the landlord did not refute it, and in lieu of evidence from the landlord to support its more recent explanation, the Ombudsman accepts the resident’s version of events as set out above.
  14. The information available to this Service does not make clear under what response category the repair to the gas fire would have been classified as. Given that the fire had been capped, and that there was another source of heating in the property via the central heating system, it seems unlikely that this would have been classed as an emergency. However, given that the landlord has stated that it raised the repair as a “day attendance” on 29 November 2019, it would seem that the repair was classed as “urgent”. As the repair was not completed until 17 December 2019, this was outside of the “urgent” timeframe. In addition, as the resident’s records show, appointments were missed, she had to chase up the matter on several occasions, and was provided with conflicting information.
  15. The landlord’s compensation policy does not seem to make any provision for payment of compensation for service failure resulting in inconvenience or distress. However, this does not prevent the landlord from giving discretionary consideration to whether financial compensation for stress caused by service failure, or the time and trouble taken to pursue a complaint, is appropriate. In this case, given the failings identified, the Ombudsman’s considers a payment of compensation appropriate in light of the time and trouble caused to the resident pursuing the matter.
  16. The Ombudsman also notes that while the landlord has said that heating and hot water were available at the property during the period in question, the resident has clarified that while this was the case, there is no radiator in the living room, with the fire the only source of heat. The Ombudsman’s order of compensation takes into account the resident being unable to heat the living room for a three-week period in November.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will fully investigate complaints and provide a response (or update) within 15 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied they would need to explain why they think the decision was incorrect. The complaint would then be looked at by an independent officer and responded to within 20 working days.
  2. There is little indication in the stage one response that the complaint was fully investigated, and no comment was made on the resident’s concerns about a lack of clarity on the repair and having to keep chasing it up. The resident submitted her request for review around mid-January, but this was not acknowledged until several weeks later. The review acknowledgment letter is dated 11 February 2020 but said that the review would be completed by 10 February 2020. The response was provided on 17 February, which was outside of the 20-working day timeframe.
  3. The response stated that the resident had not provided details of any discrepancies: This was incorrect, she had clearly stated that the landlord had only referenced one missed appointment whereas there were three, and said that no restrictor had been fitted. The landlord’s response failed to address these concerns.
  4. Overall, this was a poor complaint response from the landlord, which missed an opportunity to fully investigate the matter and possibly identify areas for service improvement. This Service investigated a similar case against the landlord recently, where it was found that the formal complaint responses (from around this same time in 2020) were found to be poor, and provided outside of the landlord’s target timeframe. As in this case, the complaint responses did not detail the investigation the landlord had made into the issue and its handling of the repair. The Ombudsman therefore recommended that the landlord review its complaints handling policies and procedures and provide training to staff involved in complaints handling on the process and quality of complaint responses, taking into account the new Complaint Handling Code as published on this Service’s website.
  5. A recommendation was also made that the landlord review its repairs procedure and provide training to staff to ensure that the landlord is communicating effectively with contractors and residents about the handling of reoccurring repairs issues.
  6. In light of these previous recommendations, this Service does not repeat similar in this case, but the landlord should carry out these recommendations if it has not already done so, and take steps to ensure that its record keeping practices are adequate and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with section 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs required to the gas fire, and service failure in the landlord’s handling of the subsequent formal complaint.

Reasons

  1. The repair to the fire was delayed, appointments were missed, and the resident had to chase up the matter on several occasions. This would have been frustrating and time consuming, and meant the resident was without a heating source in the living room of the property for three weeks. The response to the formal complaint was poor and the resident’s escalation request was not considered, despite the discrepancies that she had raised.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident:
    1. £175 for the time and trouble taken in pursuing the repair, the missed appointments, and the delay in the repair being completed.
    2. £50 for the failure to respond to the complaint in line with its complaint policy.