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

Birmingham City Council (202226339)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226339

Birmingham City Council

10 December 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 how the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for it to:
    1. Renovate the kitchen, bathroom, and roof.
    2. Install a back-gate in the garden.
    3. Relocate the boiler.
    4. Repair faulty brickwork at the rear of the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom house which the resident lives in with her 2 children. The resident has multiple health conditions which impact her mobility, and both her and her son have asthma.
  2. On 24 February 2015 the landlord surveyed the property as part of its cyclical improvement programme and determined that the kitchen and bathroom were in reasonable condition.
  3. On 27 May 2021 the resident contacted her local councillor to report issues about arrears and structural faults inside the property. She also advised that she did not have a boundary at the rear of her garden. The councillor contacted the landlord and asked it to address the resident’s concerns. The landlord replied in July 2021 and advised her to contact its arrears team to discuss this and advised it had forwarded her repairs concerns onto the appropriate team. It encouraged her to send any supporting evidence she could related to her concerns that the property was not suitable for her due to her health conditions.
  4. In May 2022 it appears the resident called the landlord and asked when her bathroom and kitchen would be renovated. The landlord replied on 18 May 2022 and explained that, while her kitchen and bathroom would be included in future cycles of renovations, it was unable to advise her exactly when this would be. It explained that it was prioritising houses with single glazing and no heating for upgrades at the time.
  5. The resident was unhappy with this and replied on 30 May 2022 that her neighbours had already had their kitchens, bathrooms, and roofs renovated. She asked the landlord to explain to her why her property had been left out. She also advised that the boiler and “condition of [her] home” were affecting her and her children’s health.
  6. The resident then emailed the landlord on 19 July 2022 chasing a response to this. The landlord called her on 22 July 2022 to discuss her concerns. The resident explained she was unhappy because she had been “missed out” for her kitchen to be renewed through the cyclical improvements scheme. She explained that she understood the survey in 2015 found issues which remained at this point. She also advised that the boiler was repeatedly breaking down. To resolve things, she asked the landlord to upgrade her boiler, bathroom, kitchen, and loft. She also asked it to install a back-gate in her garden.
  7. The landlord logged this as a formal complaint and responded on 4 August 2022. It explained that the survey in 2015 had found her kitchen and bathroom were in reasonable condition but that it would consider improving them as part of future programmes. It elaborated that it had reprioritised its current improvement programme to focus on improving fire-safety in high-rise flats. The landlord noted the resident’s complaint about her boiler. However, it explained that she had not raised any breakdown issues via its repairs service, and that the boiler had recently passed its annual service. It encouraged her to raise any issues via its repairs service.
  8. The resident and the landlord communicated sporadically about the issues she raised over the next few months. On 3 November 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She reiterated her complaint that her neighbours’ homes had been improved, but that hers had been unfairly missed out. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 December 2022. It explained it had nothing to add to its previous explanation regarding how it was prioritising its home improvement cycle. It recognised the resident was unhappy that neighbours’ properties had been renovated but explained that these decisions were made on a case-by-case basis for each specific property.
  9. On 9 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and reported that her neighbours dog had entered her back garden, and that this was a repeated occurrence. She said that the landlord had an obligation to do something about the open access at the bottom of her garden. On 30 January 2023 the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. We advised that she had completed the landlord’s complaint process regarding her request for renovations. She advised that she had not raised complaints about the back-gate or her request for the landlord to relocate her boiler. We advised her to do so and get back in touch with us once the landlord provided complaint responses or if it did not respond.
  10. On 24 April 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response for her concerns about the back-gate. It noted her view that there was not adequate fencing at the bottom of the garden and that she wanted the landlord to provide this. It explained it could not find a complaint about this in its systems, but that it would investigate her concerns. It advised it would arrange an interview with her and asked her to provide any further photo evidence she may have of the dog accessing her garden. Following this there was no further complaints correspondence between either party.
  11. On 5 October 2023 the resident confirmed via email that she wanted us to investigate her complaint. In a phone call in November 2024 the resident confirmed that all of her concerns remain outstanding. To resolve things, she would like the landlord to renovate her bathroom, kitchen, and roof. She would like it to install a back-gate, relocate her boiler to a different room upstairs, and repair faulty brickwork at the rear of the property. She would also like compensation for distress from 2022 onwards.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and we are satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  2. We have seen no evidence that the resident has raised a complaint with the landlord about faulty brickwork at the rear of her property. Therefore, this investigation will not consider these concerns.
  3. From 2021 onwards, we have seen no indication that the resident has complained about any decision by the landlord to not relocate the boiler. Furthermore, we can see no evidence that the resident has specifically asked the landlord to do so, or of any communication between both parties about this request. We can see that the resident noted concerns about the boiler’s impact on her son’s health in her email of 30 May 2022. We can also see that the landlord failed to respond to this, and so she had to follow up on it on 19 July 2022.
  4. However, in the follow up call on 22 July 2022 which the landlord then logged as a complaint, the resident made a different complaint about the boiler and asked for it to be upgraded. The landlord then addressed this specific complaint about the functionality of the boiler at stage 1 and the resident did not escalate any boiler-related concerns to stage 2.
  5. We also advised the resident to make a specific complaint about this in January 2023 and to contact us if the landlord did not respond. However, she did not do so. With all this in mind, and in line with paragraph 42.a, this investigation will not consider her complaint about how the landlord responded to her request for it to relocate her boiler.
  6. The resident’s complaint about how the landlord has handled her requests for it to install a back-gate has not exhausted its complaint process. We can see the resident raised this on 22 July 2022 and that the landlord failed to address it as part of its stage 1 response. We can see the resident then complained about this again on 9 January 2023. In its stage 1 response on 24 April 2023 the landlord explained that it had no related complaints about the back-gate on its systems. This was incorrect, and we consider this was because the landlord failed to log the 9 January 2023 email as a complaint.
  7. However, the landlord still provided a stage 1 response for this complaint, and in this response it explained to the resident how she could escalate her concerns to stage 2 if she disagreed with it. The resident did not do so. Therefore, we consider the landlord gave the resident sufficient opportunity to escalate this complaint via its process. For this reason, and in line with 42.a, this investigation will not consider this complaint.

How the landlord handled the resident’s requests for it to renovate the kitchen, bathroom, and roof

  1. The Decent Homes Standard sets out that properties should have reasonably modern facilities and services. It explains that homes which do not meet the following 3 criteria do not meet this standard:
    1. A kitchen which is 20 years old or less.
    2. A kitchen with adequate space and layout.
    3. A bathroom which is 30 years old or less
    4. An appropriately located bathroom and WC.
  2. On 30 May 2022 the resident complained that the landlord should renovate her kitchen, bathroom, and roof. She explained that her neighbours had all received these renovations and that it was unfair she had been left out. The landlord explained in its stage 1 and 2 responses that it surveyed her property in 2015 and found it was in “reasonable condition”. It also explained that it was prioritising the properties with the least modern facilities, but that the resident’s property would be considered as part of future improvement works. We can see photos it took at this survey, and these do not reveal any obvious signs of deterioration or disrepair.
  3. The landlord is not under any obligation to complete improvement works to properties which have reasonably modern facilities. We recognise that it has to prioritise its resources to upgrade its least modern properties and to improve fire safety. We also recognise that it surveyed the property in 2015 and found it was in reasonable condition. However, the resident complained about the condition of the property 7 years later. She also explained that the poor condition of the property was exacerbating her and her son’s health conditions.
  4. Given these vulnerabilities, and the passage of time since the last survey, we consider the landlord should have completed another survey to satisfy itself that her property was in a reasonable condition as per the Decent Homes Standard. It failed to do so, and we consider this likely caused the resident some distress.
  5. For this reason, we will order the landlord to survey the property with specific regard to the kitchen, bathroom, and roof. It must then provide the resident with an up-to-date position on the condition of the property with reference to the Decent Homes Standard. It must explain what, if any, implications this has on whether the property is eligible for renovation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will seek to resolve complaints immediately wherever possible. However, if it is unable to do, it explains the complaint will go to stage 2 of its process and it will address these complaints within 15 working days. If a resident remains dissatisfied, it will escalate the complaint to a stage 2 review and address it within 20 working days.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which became statutory from April 2024, states that landlords should address stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. When unable to meet these timescales, landlords should provide updated timescales and explanations for the delay.
  3. The resident complained on 30 May 2022 that the landlord had not renovated her property. The landlord did not log this as a formal complaint or address it. This was not in keeping with its complaint handling policy, and it likely caused the resident some frustration. Our guidance on compensation sets out that payments of £50 to £100 are typically sufficient to put right failures which caused minor impacts to residents which the landlord has not acknowledged. While the delay was likely frustrating, we cannot reasonably say its impact went much further than this. Based on this, we will order the landlord pays the resident £75 to address this.
  4. After it did not respond to her 30 May 2022 complaint the resident called the landlord on 22 July 2022 and complained again. The landlord logged this as a complaint and provided a response on 4 August 2022. This was within the timescales outlined in both its policy and the Code.
  5. The resident then escalated her complaint on 3 November 2022, and the landlord did not respond until 28 December 2022. While this was outside of the timescale outlined in its policy, we can see the landlord updated the resident on 9 and 23 December 2022 and explained why the response was delayed. It also apologised for this on each occasion. We recognise there are times when complaint handling delays are justified. In this instance, we consider the landlord acted appropriately and mitigated the impact of the delay by apologising and keeping the resident updated.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in:
    1. How the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for it to renovate the kitchen, bathroom, and roof.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, how the landlord responded to the following complaint points are outside of our jurisdiction:
    1. Install a back-gate in the garden.
    2. Relocate the boiler.
    3. Repair faulty brickwork at the rear of the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £75 compensation for its complaint handling delay.
  2. The landlord is to complete a survey of the property with specific regard to the kitchen, bathroom, and roof. It is then to provide the resident with an up-to-date position on the condition of the property with reference to the Decent Homes Standard. It is also to explain to the resident what implications, if any, the survey has on her eligibility for improvements.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord extends the scope of the survey at the property as the resident has told the Ombudsman that there is defective brickwork at the rear of the property.
  2. The landlord should provide the resident with an up-to-date position on whether it will install a back-gate. If it will not, it is to advise the resident on whether she has the option to do so herself.