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

Birmingham City Council (202230701)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230701

Birmingham City Council

18 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak, and subsequent damage to personal belongings.
  2. The Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom flat.
  2. The landlord’s records show the landlord completed a repair reported about the roof leaking in August 2020. The landlord completed a further inspection of the roof in February 2021. The notes from the inspection stated there were no signs of a leak. In August 2021, the landlord noted the roof was old but watertight and fit for purpose. It noted the roof had been placed on a capital programme to be renewed in the future. On 27 October 2022, the landlord raised a repair for the roof leaking. This was noted as completed on 7 November 2022.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 23 November 2022 by phone. The resident said she had been reporting her roof leaking for 5 years. She said the landlord had attended and she had been told a new roof was needed. The resident said one of her rooms needed full plastering once the rood was fixed. On 29 November 2022, the resident completed a compensation claim form. She claimed a total of £499.99 for items (a TV and carpet cleaning) which she stated had been damaged from the landlord’s lack of repair to the roof.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 9 January 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said it had arranged for repairs to the roof to be carried out the earliest available appointment on 9 and 10 February 2023. The landlord responded to an MP enquiry on 8 March 2023 about the matter of compensation. It stated the form had been received and it would contact the resident about the outcome.
  5. On 29 March 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident it was unable to uphold her claim for compensation due to damages from the leak. In regard to a replacement roof, it confirmed all programme works were currently on hold. It said if there were any repair issue, the resident should report this. In September 2023, the landlord reissued its letter about the compensation from 29 March 2023 to the resident as she had not received this.
  6. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 1 September 2023. The resident stated water had been pouring from the ceiling and there was a video of water destroying her TV and carpet. The roof was fixed in February 2023 but she had had experienced damage in the property.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 15 December 2023. It said the following:
    1. It apologised that the resident had not received the letter on 29 March 2023.
    2. It acknowledged the resident had reported damage to personal belongings resulting from continued rainwater leaks from the communal roof.
    3. It appeared the repeated efforts to patch repair the roof had been ineffective. A works order was raised on 6 April 2023 for a full reroof with a target date for completion on 31 March 2024. Completion of the work was dependent on the availability of funds which appeared to be depleted.
    4. The block repair remained on the programme which it planned to address in the coming financial year (April 2024 to March 2025).
    5. It apologised that it had not handled the resident complaint from November 2022 in accordance with its 2-stage process.
    6. Its findings in its response in March 2023 that there was no water ingress at the time of the inspection, was no indication the roof was not defective during that period. Its plans to replace the roof were sufficient evidence of it being defective.
    7. A later inspection of the loft in February 2021 revealed there was no felt under the tiles but no water stains were identified to ceilings. This suggested there were no leaks.
    8. It was unclear when the images of the bedroom were taken. This clearly showed evidence of water ingress and black mould, either through damaged guttering or roofing.
    9. It was evident the resident had been denied peaceful enjoyment of her home over a considerable period. Its initial response to the complaint had failed to demonstrate an adequate investigation into the duration of the roof leaks, home life and the potential damage of personal belongings.
    10. It accepted that the experience would likely have caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. However, it noted previous inspections of the property had identified ‘little to no damp’ and that the roof was ‘ watertight and fit for purpose.’ The contractor also reported no signs of leaks.
    11. It offed the resident a discretionary payment of £770. This was in recognition of ill health, delays in completing repairs to satisfaction, disruption to home life resulting in distress and inconvenience, damage to personal belongings and delays in responding to the request for review of the complaint.
    12. It was unable to make a payment towards reported damaged items, including the television without receipts. It intended to allow an appeal of that decision in view of the recent quote provided for carpet cleaning.
    13. The resident had now exhausted all stages of its complaints process.
  8. The resident provided further evidence to the landlord of damage. The landlord responded on 30 January 2024 and confirmed the offer of £770 was its full and final offer. The resident remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered. In August 2024, the resident told this Service that there were internal repairs required to the property as a result of the leaks including to walls and the carpet. She said the damp and mould was affecting her son’s health. The landlord informed this Service in October 2024 that the works order for re roofing had been cancelled at the end of the financial year.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation.

  1. The resident raised during the complaint process that she had been reporting issues to the landlord for a period of around 5 years. While the historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from November 2022 that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  2. The resident referred to the situation impacting her health. While this Service is able to assess the response the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, it is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. This is in line with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme which explains the Ombudsman may not consider matters which are fairer and more effectively dealt with by the courts.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak, and subsequent damage to personal belongings.

  1. The landlord accepted its repairs responsibility under the tenancy agreement. The conditions of tenancy advises residents to insure the contents of the home and recommends that resident’s insure valuable items against accidental damage.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy says the resident is responsible for all internal decoration. It says a repair shall be undertaken in all cases. Only where it is not practical or uneconomic to carry out a repair shall a renewal or replacement be carried out. Before any renewal or replacement is carried out it will check if the item is or can be included on a planned programme. The policy states urgent repairs are completed in up to 7 working days, and routine repairs are targeted to be completed within 30 days of them being reported.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy at the time of the resident’s complaint says liability can only be accepted if work that had been done was not sufficient to remedy the problem or proved to be faulty. It says it will not pay for items not seen or proved to have existed and been damaged, however photographs showing items damaged were acceptable.
  4. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that its previous repairs had been ineffective. The landlord’s repair records showed it had raised a repair to the roof on 27 October 2022 and completed this on 7 November 2022. The landlord’s records do not show details of the work completed at this time. However, it was evident from the resident’s complaint on 23 November 2023 that further works were required. The landlord completed these works on 10 February 2023. This was a timeframe of 54 days from the resident raising the issue again. This was outside of the 30 days timescale in the landlord’s policy. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord stated this was due to availability of operatives. Nothing in the evidence shows the landlord missed any clear opportunities to complete the work faster than it did.
  5. The landlord had taken steps to resolve the leak from the roof as committed in its stage 1 response. However, it did not demonstrate the action it had taken in the meantime to mitigate possible damages caused to the resident’s property from the water ingress. In her complaint, the resident told the landlord she had experienced rainwater entering the property and that there was a room which needed full plastering after the roof was repaired. There was no evidence provided of the landlord inspecting the internal damage mentioned. The landlord has not provided evidence of a post-work inspection following the completion of the roof repairs.
  6. The landlord stated in its final response that its previous inspections of the property had assessed the roof as watertight and showed no signs of leaks. However, its records show these inspections took place in 2020 and 2021. The outcome of any roofing inspections after this date was not provided. The landlord acknowledged that its repeated efforts to patch repair the roof had been ineffective and plans are now underway to replace the entire roof under its capital investment programme. This was an appropriate action to take in response to the outcome of the previous repairs. However, the landlord confirmed to this Service that this works order had been cancelled at the end of the financial year. The resident reported to this Service in August 2024 that the roof was leaking again. It is not clear if the resident has reported this to the landlord.
  7. There was no evidence of the resident reporting damp and mould to the landlord prior December 2023, in which she shared photos as further evidence requested for her stage 2 review, with the landlord. She also told the landlord this had impacted on her son’s health. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that the photos (undated) showed evidence of black mould. However, it did not explain steps it would take in response. This did not demonstrate a customer focused approach, or that it had fully considered the impact on the reported household vulnerabilities.
  8. The landlord attempted to resolve the issues in the substantive complaint relating to the repairs and compensation within its total amount of compensation of £770. It is essential for landlords to break down any offers of compensation so that a resident can understand to what extent it had acknowledged the impact of each individual failure. In absence of a full breakdown of this calculation by the landlord, this Service was unable to determine what proportion had been attributed to each issue.
  9. The remedies offered by the landlord showed good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes. However, some of its explanations and responses to the complaint did not reasonably reflect the resident’s current situation, and the landlord did not provide a clear plan by which it intended to finally resolve any ongoing problems. It also did not take a proactive and customer focused approach to her reports about damp and mould in consideration of the reported health vulnerabilities in the household.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the resident’s complaint says it has a 2 stage complaints process. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s records show the resident raised her complaint on 23 November 2022. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 9 January 2023. This was a timeframe of 30 working days. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 September 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 15 December 2023. This was a timeframe of 75 working days. The timescales here did not meet the timescales in the landlord’s policy or the Code. The landlord emailed the resident on 6 December 2023 to extend the complaint. It stated excessive workloads were the reason for the delay. There is no evidence of further updates to her prior to this, and by the time of the update the response was already late.
  3. In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling failures resulted in a protracted complaints process for the resident, this delayed both the resolution of her complaint and access to this Service. The landlord attempted to put this right through an offer of compensation. However, it did not break this down to specify the proportion it attributed to delays in responding to the request for review of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak, and subsequent damage to personal belongings.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident total compensation of £1050. This is inclusive of the £770 already paid during the complaints process. This is comprised of:
    1. £950 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports about a leak, and subsequent damage to personal belongings.
    2. £100 for the delay in its complaint handling.
  2. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. Evidence of payment must be provided to the Ombudsman within 5 weeks of this report.
  3. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to carry out an inspection of the property to assess any outstanding repairs to damp and mould, and any further leaks. The landlord is to provide the resident with the expected timescale for the completion of any works identified by this inspection. As part of the assessment the landlord must consider any remedial works needed to resolve any decorative damage which can reasonably be said to have been caused by the leaks to the resident’s home.