Birmingham City Council (202228085)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228085

Birmingham City Council

17 February 2025

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 about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports that a roof access gate caused noise nuisance.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom flat on the top floor of an eleven storey block. The landlord is a local authority and freeholder of the property. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
In December 2022 the resident told the landlord noise from the blocks roof was disturbing him. He said a previous caretaker had described a metal access gate on the roof above his flat. He believed the wind would cause the gate to bang if not closed properly.
On 31 March 2023 the resident made a complaint. He considered the gate an urgent repair due to it affecting his peaceful enjoyment of his property. He alleged that the caretaker was “deliberately” opening the gate and contractors ignoring signs to keep it closed. He expected the landlord to take disciplinary action and considered the act to disturb him “harassment” and “racially motivated”.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and sent a stage 1 response on 3 February 2023. It said its caretaker had to complete inspections every day. This included accessing the blocks roof. It assured the resident it had checked the roof again, and nobody could access the roof without keys.
On 3 February 2023 the resident responded to the landlord. He remained unhappy with its stage 1 response. He said the response did not reflect the nature of his complaint. He insisted somebody investigate and remedy his concerns. The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 February 2023 about the same noise issues. It treated this as the resident’s complaint escalation.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 19 May 2023. And sent its stage 2 final response on 20 July 2023. We informed it we did not consider its response compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It sent a second stage 2 response on 4 August 2023. The landlord:
1. remained satisfied there had been no unauthorised access to the roof
2. was satisfied signage remained appropriate and met health and safety regulations
3. said it would change locks, install additional signage, and complete an inspection of water tanks which may also cause noise by 1 September 2023
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He considered the caretaker responsible for the noise and considered their actions harassment. He wanted the noise resolved and for the landlord to deny the caretaker access to the roof.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In contact with us the resident referred to the landlord’s staff as homophobic. And that the landlord’s failures were harassment and racially motivated. Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. These matters therefore fall outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns further using equalities legislation. Or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.
Beyond the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP), the resident raised concerns about data protection. This did not form part of his original complaint. Furthermore, we are unable to investigate complaints concerning the landlord’s handling of data. So, this matter will not form part of this investigation. The resident may wish to seek guidance on this matter from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
In contact with the landlord in September 2023 the resident raised more issues. Including how it handled historical antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the block, police involvement, and the associated costs to investigate. ASB did not form part of his original complaint. So, these matters will not form part of our investigation.
Our decisions consider whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. If we find failure by a landlord, we can consider any distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of the resident’s reports a roof access gate caused noise nuisance

The landlord’s repairs policy and tenant handbook says it will respond to emergency repairs within 2 hours. Urgent repairs within 1,3, or 7 working days, depending on the type of repair. And within 30 days for non-urgent repairs.
The resident informed the landlord of noise from above his flat on 24 December 2022. He described raising similar jobs earlier that year. And said the landlord had failed to resolve the issue.
In his complaint of 31 January 2023 the resident said the landlord had not responded to further concerns on 9 January 2023. And he said a contractor had accessed the roof on 27 January 2023, leaving the gate open for 5 days. He described the gate banging in the wind and disturbing him. He considered the actions deliberate and believed it should discipline its staff.
It is unclear what action the landlord took to address the resident’s reports at this stage. He chased it again on 3 February 2023 saying he considered the landlord’s caretaker to be “committing a deliberate act” to disturb him. He said the behaviour was racially motivated. The landlord responded to the resident the same day. It explained its caretaker required access to the roof daily. This was part of their job requirement and necessary for health and safety purposes.
It was reasonable for the landlord to explain its caretakers role and explain its need to access the roof. But its response did not demonstrate it had understood his service request or subsequent complaint. The landlord failed to demonstrate it had specifically investigated the gate on the roof, which the resident believed to be the cause of the noise.
The resident made more reports on the 8 and 17 February 2023. On 20 February 2023 the landlord’s internal records show that its caretaker had identified the cause. They completed a temporary repair to secure the roof gate and reported it to its repairs team. The landlord provided photographs of the roof access gate. It had temporarily secured it with electrical tape to minimise its movement in the wind. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if the gate was damaged, or if its latch simply allowed excess movement to cause noise in high winds.
The noise from a metal gate above his property would understandably have caused the resident a disturbance. It is reasonable to have expected the landlord to have investigated and repaired this within its non-urgent repair time of 30 days. At the stage of the temporary repair, it remained within this timescale. But we have been unable to identify how the landlord communicated its findings to him. The lack of an update may have caused him distress as he did not know if a remedy was in hand.
Between February to November 2023 the landlord and resident’s relationship deteriorated. The landlord documented the resident accusing its caretaker and his attempts to photograph them without their consent. It also recorded the resident’s behaviour towards staff while on the telephone.
On 11 April 2023 the landlord recorded the resident chasing the repair. It informed colleagues it had already raised 5 repairs and needed it resolved for the resident. This did not demonstrate effective monitoring of the outstanding work or effective communication to update the resident. Nor does it show that it had met its repair timescales. This was not appropriate.
While the resident’s behaviour towards its caretaker may have contributed towards delays, it is reasonable to have expected the landlord to have maintained communication by other means. We have been unable to identify it doing this.
During May to July 2023 there is evidence the landlord inspected the roof gate. It provided photographs of a hasp and staple locking mechanism it installed to the gate. It also covered the gate in pipe lagging to reduce any movement or resulting noise. While it did not complete the repair within its policy times, it demonstrated taking steps to minimise any disturbance to the resident. The landlord says it received no further reports of noise from the resident after the repair.
That said, we have correspondence from the resident in September 2023 which suggests the repair was not entirely successful. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to check the gate again.
We are unable to determine any deliberate wrongdoing by the landlord’s staff. Nor can we insist that the landlord denies staff access to areas which require inspecting. But we have identified failure due to gaps in its communication with the resident. And delays to resolve the repair within its repair policy response times. This caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience raising his complaint to the landlord and us.
Based on our findings we find service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports a roof access gate caused noise nuisance. The landlord did not show effective communication or monitoring of the repair. This caused him time and trouble chasing for updates and a loss of confidence in the landlord’s service delivery.
Had it demonstrated effective monitoring and updated the resident, it may have been able to better manage his expectations. Also, the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge its failings or offer redress. So we order it to pay £150 compensation to put this matter right.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy (March 2021) used a 2-stage complaints process. It said it would aim to acknowledge a complaint within 48 hours. And send its stage 1 and 2 responses within 15 and 20 working days, respectively.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords. The Code, 1 April 2022, required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
The landlord’s policy at the time did not align with the Code. But the Ombudsman accepted corporate complaints processes for local authority landlord’s at that time.
The Code (1 April 2022) states:
1. a landlord must define a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made
2. a landlord’s acknowledgement must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking
3. landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate
The landlord acknowledged the residents complaint the same day, 31 March 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 response within 3 working days, on 3 February 2023. The landlord responded within its policy response times. But neither its acknowledgement nor response met the expectations of the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 response attempted to reassure the resident. It had restricted access in place for the roof. But it made no effort to show how it had considered his reports of noise. Nor evidence the steps it had taken to investigate his concerns. Its failure to do so caused him time and trouble asking to escalate his complaint to progress matters.
The resident’s email on 3 February 2023 clearly showed his dissatisfaction. Though he did not specifically ask to escalate his complaint, it was reasonable to have expected the landlord to have treated it as such from this date. Though it only treated his escalation from 8 February 2023. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the Code.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 19 May 2023. 70 working days beyond its own complaint policy response times. This was not appropriate and indicates a failure to monitor outstanding complaints.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 20 July 2023, which was 95 working days beyond its complaint policy response times.
The Code says landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage 2 in clear, plain language:
1. the complaint stage
2. the complaint definition
3. the decision on the complaint
4. the reasons for any decisions made
5. the details of any remedy offered to put things right
6. details of any outstanding actions
The landlord’s response failed to meet these expectations. It failed to define the resident’s complaint or demonstrate sending him a stage 1 response that addressed his concerns.
Also, within its responses it included incorrect information about which Ombudsman the resident could escalate his complaint to. As such we requested it redo its response. It sent it second stage 2 response on 4 August 2023. This was not appropriate and beyond its complaint policy response times.
When there are failings by the landlord, as there is in this case, it is our role to consider an appropriate level of redress to put things right. The landlord’s final stage 2 response apologised for the inconvenience of his reports of noise and summarised the actions it would take to minimise the gate noise affecting him. However, it failed to apologise for its complaint handling delays or demonstrate how it would learn from this failure. Nor did it offer the resident any redress.
Based on our findings, we find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. We order it to pay the resident £125 to put things right. This is consistent with our guidance on remedies where the landlord’s failures have adversely affected the resident.

Special investigation

In January 2023 the Ombudsman completed a special investigation report on the landlord. We required the landlord to make changes to its complaint handling and we made recommendations based on our findings. In this investigation, we have found similar failures. However, as the landlord has demonstrated compliance with earlier wider orders. So, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made. The landlord should consider whether there are any issues arising from this case that require further action.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlords handling of the resident’s reports a roof access gate caused noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £275 compensation. The compensation is made up of:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports a roof access gate caused noise nuisance.
  2. £125 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord inspects the roof gate and speaks to the resident to ensure the repair is providing a lasting remedy.