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

Birmingham City Council (202216110)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216110

Birmingham City Council

24 May 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:
    1. communication to the resident when erecting scaffolding.
    2. response to the resident’s reports of contaminated water.
    3. response to the resident’s repair requests.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident’s tenancy with the landlord began on 5 July 2021. Between August 2021 and December 2021, the resident reported various repair requests, contaminated water, and complained that it had erected scaffolding without notifying him.
  2. On 23 March 2022, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs. He said that the flat had been in disrepair since the beginning of the tenancy, the landlord had delayed in carrying out repairs, and failed to carry out some repairs. He complained that it failed to inform him before it erected scaffolding which restricted his use of the property and failed to inform him that there was asbestos on the roof before he moved in.
  3. The resident said he did not have use of his shower, he had to live elsewhere when scaffolding was erected, and the landlord failed to consider his health and safety. As a resolution to the complaint, he wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs and compensation of £6129 for living at other properties for 8 months, risk of asbestos on the roof, obscuring his view with scaffolding and workmen, and the effect these issues had on his health.
  4. On 27 April 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. The landlord advised that it had checked its repair records and a number of repairs had recently been cancelled. It advised the resident that he needed to contact its repairs service to report any outstanding repairs.
  5. On 31 May 2022, the resident escalated his complaint because the landlord had not addressed his complaint issues and had not paid the requested compensation. On 13 July 2022, the resident provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response. It again advised that it held no record of any outstanding repair and told the resident he needed to report any outstanding repairs.
  6. After the stage 2 complaint response, on 15 September 2022, the landlord raised work orders to rectify discoloured water in the bathroom and to repair floor tiles. On 16 September 2022, the landlord attended the property and noted an issue with the water supply. It contacted the water supplier and raised the issue for the resident. Its notes show that it attended the property to repair the bathroom floor on 26 September 2022 but there was no access and no reply to a phone call.
  7. On 22 February 2023, the resident brought his complaint to this Service. As a resolution to the complaint, he wanted the landlord to complete outstanding repairs and compensation for loss of use of his facilities and distress caused. The resident a further complaint to the landlord on 8 March 2023 about water contamination and the repairs to the bathroom floor which remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised a previous complaint on 24 August 2021 about the landlord erecting scaffolding at his building without notifying him, which obscured his view. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 6 September 2021. It upheld the complaint and apologised for not communicating with him and for the inconvenience caused. For fairness, the previous complaint has been considered in this investigation because the resident raised the same issue in this complaint and the landlord had failed to appropriately signpost him to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
  2. After the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response, the resident raised another complaint with the landlord on 8 February 2023 about the tone of a letter about his rent and about ongoing repair issues. Although some repair issues overlap with this investigation, this further complaint has not been considered in this investigation. In accordance with 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this complaint may not be considered as it had not exhausted landlord’s internal complaint process. If the resident remains unhappy with the outcome of the further complaint, he should escalate to this Service if appropriate.

The landlord’s communication to the resident when erecting scaffolding.

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that it will try to warn the resident if it thinks that any proposed repairs will cause inconvenience.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 24 August 2021 that it had erected scaffolding without his permission or informing him. The landlord appropriately investigated the complaint and noted that it had erected scaffolding to carry out roof repairs. It was unable to say if its roofing specialist had appropriately notified the surrounding areas of the scaffolding and it apologised for the lack of communication. It advised that it hoped to have the roof repair complete, and scaffolding removed by 9 September 2022. An apology was a reasonable response to the resident’s complaint.
  3. As part of the complaint investigation, the landlord advised that it had identified asbestos materials on the roof, which required removal, which delayed the repair. The resident complained that the landlord had failed to inform him of the asbestos problem before he moved to the property. It is not clear if the landlord was aware of the presence of asbestos before the resident moved in. As the asbestos was identified as part of a roof repair and the landlord advised the resident of this finding, this Service finds that the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of contaminated water.

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. This obligation is referenced in the landlord’s tenancy agreement. Furthermore, the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its properties. This responsibility is limited to the supply after delivery of water to the property and concerned with water for drinking, cooking, washing, cleaning, and sanitation.
  2. When a resident reports contaminated water, it would be appropriate for the landlord to assess the property to test the water and confirm if it is responsible. If so, it should carry out necessary repairs. If it is not responsible it would be reasonable to signpost the resident to the water supplier if appropriate.
  3. The landlord’s records show that the first notification of contaminated water was on 19 August 2021 when it received a work report of contaminated water in the kitchen and bathroom. A contractor for the landlord attended the next day but could not access the property. This was an appropriate response from the landlord.
  4. The evidence shows that a contract manager for the landlord arranged a follow up appointment to inspect the property which took place on 7 September 2021. However, there is no record of a report of contaminated water as part of this inspection. The repair records show that another repair order was raised to inspect the water supply on 25 November 2021. A contractor for the landlord attended the following day but had no access and no answer to a phone call. The job was subsequently cancelled. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
  5. Based on the records it is not clear if the water discolouration and contamination was an ongoing issue or sporadic. While the landlord had a responsibility to respond to the resident’s reports of water contamination, the resident had a responsibility to report the issue, and allow access for the landlord to inspect. The landlord appropriately responded to both reports of contamination within 24 hours but could not access the property to assess the issue. If the water discolouration remained an ongoing issue, it would be reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to respond to the contractors or report the issue again.
  6. When the resident raised a complaint on 23 March 2022, he said that the sinks and every tap in the property had not been repaired since the beginning of the tenancy “with gunk pouring out of every tap which is a health hazard as to this day I still cannot have a shower in the property which is unacceptable”. In its stage 1 complaint response on 27 April 2022, the landlord told the resident that it held no outstanding repairs at the property and advised him to report any outstanding repairs to its repair team. While this was appropriate advice, given the nature of the complaint, the landlord should have raised a repair order. If it had done so the resident may have been signposted to the water supplier at an earlier stage.
  7. After the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord responded to a further report of contaminated water on 15 September 2022. It attended the next day and its contractor noted that there was an issue with the water supply. This indicates that the landlord was not responsible for the water contamination or discolouration. Furthermore, the resident reported the water discolouration affected every tap which indicates that the issue was with the supply rather than the installations within the property.
  8. This Service finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water contamination. It has been considered that the landlord responded reasonably, (within 24 hours) to each report, and it provided appropriate advice to the resident to report outstanding repair issues. The finding of service failure was because it should have raised a repair order when the resident complained about the water contamination. If it had done so, the resident may have known to contact the water supplier at an earlier stage. 

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.

  1. The landlord’s repair policy and tenancy agreement sets out that the resident should report any repairs needed to the property for which it is responsible. The landlord’s repairs policy states that for emergency repairs, it will respond within 2 hours. For urgent repairs, it will respond within 1, 3, or 7 working days. Routine repairs will be completed within 30 working days. The policy further states that all responsive repairs are agreed upon by appointment.
  2. The landlord responded to a report of a leak in the bathroom on 19 August 2021. It attended the next day but did not gain access. Its records show that a contract manager then attended an agreed appointment on 23 August 2021 but did not gain access and a further agreed appointment was cancelled by the resident on 2 September 2021. The landlord attended on 7 September 2021 and an internal email said that a contractor was instructed to attend the next day to repair a small leak from the toilet, clean the shower room floor and refix a cold-water pipe to the wall. This was a reasonable initial response by the landlord.
  3. The landlord’s repair records do not show that a follow up work order was raised, and it is unclear if any works were carried complete the following day. On 25 November 2021, the landlord received an emergency repair order because the toilet was leaking and an emergency repair for an electric socket, it also raised a routine repair to replace the bathroom floor. The landlord attended to both emergency repairs on 26 November and completed them.
  4. Based on the landlord’s repair records, it did not repair the leak from the toilet after it inspected the property on 7 September 2021 until it responded to an emergency repair on 26 November 2021. This was a period of 80 days. This was inappropriate and the landlord did not respond within its repair timescales.
  5. It is reasonable to conclude that if it had carried out the repair after 7 September 2021, the issue would not have developed into an emergency repair. It must also be considered that there is no evidence that the resident chased the repair within these 80 days and the landlord did respond appropriately when it became aware of the emergency. On balance, this represents a service failure by the landlord.
  6. The resident complained that the landlord failed to repair a power point until 4 months after the tenancy began. The records show that the landlord treated the report of a faulty power point as an emergency and attended and repaired the issue within 24 hours. This was an appropriate response by the landlord.
  7. After the landlord carried out the emergency repair, it is noted that it raised a follow-on repair order to repair the shower room floor after the leak. It could not access the property on 26 November 2021 but surveyed the floor on 17 December 2021. It attended on 20 January 2021 to complete the repair but found no access and called the resident with no reply. Its contractor noted that the resident cancelled this repair. In its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised the resident to report any outstanding repairs to its repairs team to action. Based on the evidence, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s request to repair the shower room floor.
  8. In his complaint, the resident said that pipes from the boiler were hanging from the wall which was a health hazard. The landlord noted on 7 September 2021 that a cold-water pipe needed to be refixed to a wall. This Service cannot determine if this was a health hazard. In its complaint response the landlord advised that it held no open repair requests and advised the resident to report any issues to its repairs team. This represents a further service failure by the landlord.
  9. This Services finds that there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s repair requests. This is because the evidence indicates that it did not follow up with repairs after it surveyed the property on 7 September 2021. These repairs included a leak from the toilet and refixing a water pipe to the wall.
  10. It is evident that the landlord experienced issues accessing the property and it would have been reasonable to expect the resident to respond to its contractors or chase ongoing repair issues. However, as the landlord had surveyed the property and was aware of repair issues it should have repaired them within a reasonable timeframe. An order of compensation has been made below to reflect the distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in completing the repair.

Complaint handling 

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, it will investigate the complaint fully and respond with its stage 1 complaint response within 15 working days. When a complaint is escalated to stage 2 it is to respond within 20 working days. Where an extension is required, it is obligated to contact the resident informing them of the reason for any delays and when a response will next be issued.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was 9 working days over its target timescales and its stage 2 complaint response complaint response was 9 working days over its target timescales. This represents a service failure. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 complaint response and apologised. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances.
  3. Both complaint responses only signposted the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, whereas the Housing Ombudsman Service would have been the more appropriate ombudsman to deal with the residents housing complaint.
  4. While the landlord’s complaint policy states that complaints would be fully investigated, there is no indication that this occurred in this case. Both complaint responses were very brief and simply signposted the resident to report any outstanding repairs. While this was appropriate advice, the landlord should have addressed each issue raised by the resident and provided a response as to how it had handled each issue, and it should have confirmed if it was satisfied that it had complied with its obligations appropriately and treated the resident fairly.
  5. It is evident that the landlord’s failure to appropriately address the resident’s issues in its complaint responses caused frustration. When he escalated the complaint to stage 2, he said it was because the landlord failed to address the issues. Complaint handling should be used as a tool for the landlord to identify learnings and put things right for the resident. A good complaint investigation can provide insights for the landlord to identify areas for improvement or confirm if it is satisfied that it has complied with its obligations. The landlord’s complaint responses did not indicate a thorough complaint investigation.
  6. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it failed to provide its complaint responses within its timescales, it failed to demonstrate adequately that it had investigated the complaint, and it failed to signpost the resident appropriately to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
  7. An order of compensation has been made below to reflect the frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failings in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Remedies Guidance.
  8. After a special report by this Service, the landlord provided a learning statement (link below) on 17 January 2023, which included a commitment to improving its complaint handling. As this case predates the landlord’s commitment to improvement, no orders have been made in respect of its complaint handling.

https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/2023/01/17/ombudsman-issues-special-report-on-birmingham-city-council-after-wider-investigation-finds-fundamental-failures/

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily with respect of its communication to the resident when erecting scaffolding.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of contaminated water.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is ordered for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £300, compromising:
    1. £100 for frustration caused to the resident by its complaint responses.
    2. £50 for distress caused by its delay in responding to a report of water contamination.
    3. £150 for distress caused by its delay in responding to repair requests.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.