Birmingham City Council (202303187)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303187

Birmingham City Council

14 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould and requests for associated plastering works.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom high rise flat, owned by the landlord.
The resident reported water leaks in the property on multiple occasions between 7 December 2021 and 5 April 2022. She said the leaks were coming into her flat from the flat above and were causing damage to the plastering and painting in the bathroom.
The resident raised a formal complaint through her member of parliament who contacted the landlord on 8 April 2022. She raised another formal complaint on 28 July 2022. In both complaints, she informed the landlord that the leaks were still ongoing and requested for it to resolve the leaks and plastering works.
This Service contacted the landlord on 21 June 2023 and asked it to provide a stage 1 complaint response. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2023. It said it identified and rectified the leak issue on 25 May 2023. It apologised for the delays in completing the repair works. It offered £125 compensation for late responses to the complaints and delays in resolving the leaks.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and the level of compensation offered. She requested for it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on 6 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 August 2023. It said it identified and rectified a leak from a neighbouring property on 9 August 2023 and completed further works to prevent water ingress into the property. It fixed a new appointment for replastering the bathroom wall on 24 August 2023. It apologised and offered increased compensation of £500 for late responses to the complaints and delays in resolving the leaks.
The resident brought her complaint to this Service for investigation. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and offer of compensation. She stated that the leaks and replastering works remained unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident stated that she has made multiple reports about the water leaks and plastering works since 2015. Under Paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. For complaints for which the landlord issued its final response before 1 April 2024, the Scheme referred to the ‘reasonable period’ as being within 6 months. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from October 2021.

Leaks, damp and mould and requests for associated plastering works.

The landlord’s repairs policy states the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure, exterior and the installations and fixtures of its properties including walls and ceilings. Its policy further states that it would complete routine repairs within 30 days.
The landlord’s repair records in this case show that the resident raised the issues with the leaks on 7 December 2021. She stated that she had been reporting issues with leaks coming from the flat above her since 2015. She said the leak issue had not been properly rectified and had damaged her bathroom walls and ceilings.
The landlord’s records show that it first attended the property to resolve the leak issue from the flat above on 21 February 2022. However, it did not get access to the property. Its records show it attended the flat above at least 7 times between 21 February 2022 and 27 April 2022. It recorded no access on each occasion. It was not until 27 April 2022 that it took decisive actions to address the issue of no access by providing temporary accommodation to the resident above.
This Service notes that although the landlord attended the property on multiple occasions, it took almost 4 months from when the resident reported the leaks for the landlord to seek alternative ways of gaining access to the property above. The landlord should have been more proactive in finding alternative solutions to the no access issue.
The landlord’s repair records show the resident contacted it at least 5 times between 7 December 2021 and 29 April 2022 requesting for plastering works to be completed in her bathroom. The records show it completed plastering works on 5 May 2022, within 149 days. It did not complete this repair within its routine repairs policy time limit, this was a failing.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 5 May 2022, it apologised for the difficulties the resident had experienced because of the leaks. It said it was aware of the issue and it had arranged alternative accommodation for the resident in the flat above so it could complete repairs. It was appropriate of the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its failings.
The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 10 May 2022. They said the leaks were still ongoing and the resident was unhappy with the quality of the plastering works that it completed on 5 May 2022. They asked it to resolve both issues. The landlord’s records show the representative contacted it regarding resolving the leaks and the plastering works at least 6 times between 10 May 2022 and 17 October 2022.
In the landlord’s correspondence with the resident’s representative on 8 November 2022, it reiterated the difficulties it had experienced in accessing the flat above to identify the leak and resolve the issue. It said it finally had access granted on 22 September 2022 and it completed the repairs including plastering the resident’s bathroom wall. It apologised for taking so long in resolving the issue and stated that it should have been more proactive in gaining access to the property above. It apologised for the distress caused and said it would learn from the incident to ensure it did not happen again in future.
This Service notes that the landlord acknowledged it had difficulties accessing the property. However, it did not gain access into the property until 290 days after the resident made her initial report. This was an unreasonably long time, and this delay would have understandably caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on her behalf on 8 December 2022 and 22 December 2022. They reported further leaks, and that the resident remained unhappy with the plastering works. They asked the landlord to investigate the issue.
The landlord provided a response to the resident’s representative on 13 January 2023. It stated that the leak in her flat was coming from the bathroom in the flat above. It said there had been further issues accessing the flat. It said it had resolved the leaks and plastering works at both properties on 20 December 2022. It apologised for the delays in resolving the issues and stated that the difficulties with getting access to the flat above to address the problem was not its fault.
As stated previously, this Service believes the landlord should have been more proactive in getting access to the flat above. Stating it was not its fault in its correspondence implies that it had no control over the no access situation which was not the case.
The resident’s representative contacted the landlord again on 13 January 2023. They stated that the resident reported that the plaster works were still outstanding, and the landlord did not complete the repairs on 20 December 2023 as stated in its correspondence.
The landlord’s records show it completed repair jobs on 20 December 2022. However, it is not clear from the records what specific jobs it completed. Throughout the complaint, there have been various instances in the landlord’s repair logs where it has been unclear if the landlord attended the resident’s flat or the flat above, when it completed repairs and what specific repairs it completed.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. In this case, the landlord failed to keep clear and accurate records.
The resident reported water further leaks on 24 January 2023. The landlord attended as a priority repair. However, again it did not have access to the flat above. It attended subsequently on 20 and 23 February 2023, each time it left a no access card.
Since the landlord was aware of ongoing issues of leaks coming from the flat above and having previously experienced access issues with entering the flat. It would have been reasonable for it to have secured alternative ways of accessing the flat. The landlord not being proactive in ensuring it had alternative ways of accessing the flat was a failing.
The resident reported damp and mould on the bathroom wall on 24 January 2023. According to the landlord’s website it should respond to any reports of damp and mould within 30 days and complete a survey. The landlord’s records show it attended the property on 20 February 2023. It said the new plaster work was wet, and the leak was still active. It said the plaster was coming away from the wall. It said it would remove the old paster and replaster the room.
The landlord did not confirm if damp and mould were present in the bathroom wall when it attended on 20 February 2023. This was a failing as it should have completed a damp and mould survey and informed the resident of the outcome of this survey. It should have confirmed if the walls required any treatment and stated when it would complete the treatment.
The resident reported further leaks and outstanding plastering works at least 4 times between 6 March 2023 and 23 May 2023. The resident informed this Service that the landlord attended on 23 May 2023, but it advised her that it could not complete the plastering works due to the wall and ceiling still being wet. This would suggest that the issue with the leaks were still ongoing.
The landlord stated in its previous correspondence to the resident’s representative on 13 January 2023 that it had identified the source of the leak as coming from the flat above. It is therefore unclear why the landlord had not found a permanent way of resolving the issue by 23 May 2023 almost 5 months after it identified the leaks. This was a failing and would have caused more unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Further to the above, it would have been appropriate of the landlord to have communicated any difficulties it experienced with regards to resolving the issue of the leaks and completing the plastering works with the resident. The landlord did not do this. Instead, the records show the resident constantly had to chase the landlord for updates and she had to make multiple repair requests. This was not appropriate.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2023. It stated that:
1. It had attended and rectified leaks from a neighbouring property since 25 May 2023. It replaced pipework and fittings to prevent further water ingress into the resident’s property.
2. It had made good the bathroom ceilings and walls which were damaged by continued leaks.
3. The resident advised it of dampness to one side of the bathroom wall which was still drying from persistent water penetration. Its operative would inspect for damp, mould spores, and rectify as necessary when they dealt with replastering works on 6 July 2023.
4. It apologised for the delays in completing the plastering works. It was not advisable to replaster whilst investigations into the source of the leaks were still underway.
5. It would treat as urgent any report of a leak from a neighbouring property (i.e. respond within 2 hours), or within 1 working day if containable. Where it is unable to gain access into that property, it would leave a calling card requesting contact from the occupant within 3 working days. This will prevent automatic cancellation of the works order from its systems.
6. If it responded as an urgent repair, it would force entry into the neighbouring property if it considered the leak severe, i.e. potentially hazardous to life or property. It did not deem this process necessary in the resident’s case as the leak had stopped on many occasions when it responded to the repair.
7. The resident might have questions about the effectiveness of its process since she had suffered leaks over a prolonged period. It was monitoring all such incidents based on its repair’s contractors feedback over a 12-month period to prevent future incidents of persistent leaks.
8. It apologised and offered £125 compensation taking into consideration unreliable feedback, premature closure, late responses to the complaints and delays in resolving leaks.
The landlord’s complaint response provided clarity on how it resolved leaks from neighbouring properties. It would have been reasonable to have communicated this information to the resident at an earlier stage. This might have managed her expectations on how it would oversee the leak repairs and would have provided reassurance to her that it took her complaints seriously. This lack of communication was a failure.
The landlord’s records do not reflect that it completed any repairs on 25 May 2023 as indicated in its complaint response. In addition, its system of dealing with leaks from neighbouring properties was ineffective with regards to the resident’s complaint. She had been reporting leaks in the property from 7 December 2021 and it had failed to find a permanent solution that adequately resolved the issue.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 17 August 2023, the landlord stated that:
1. It did not complete replastering works on 6 July 2023 and had fixed a new appointment for 24 August 2023.
2. It identified a leak from a neighbouring property on 9 August 2023 and completed works to prevent further water ingress into the resident’s property.
3. It had reviewed the previous compensation award of £125, including considering the delay in conducting replastering, unreliable feedback, premature closure, late responses to complaints, as well as delays in resolving leaks. Consequently, it amended the compensation award to the sum of £500.
Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delays in completing works and offered £500 compensation for these delays and for delays in responding to the complaint. It was right of the landlord to have apologised and offered compensation. However, this Service notes that it did not specify the amount of compensation it was awarding for each of the complaint issues. This Service has exercised its discretion in splitting the compensation as £350 for delays in resolving the leaks and associated repairs and £150 for its complaint handling.
It is good practice for landlords to be explicit in their compensation awards, in terms of highlighting the specific amount of compensation it has awarded to each element of the complaint. The landlord should consider this learning in its future complaint responses.
It must be noted that this Service does not consider the total amount of compensation offered in this case to be sufficient redress for the lengthy delays in resolving the issues of leaks and replastering. Even if the amount of £500 was solely for this element of the complaint, the figure does not adequately reflect the impact these delays would have had on the resident or the distress and inconvenience the situation would have caused her.
We have further considered that, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not apologise for missing the damp and mould inspection on 6 July 2023. It did not offer any compensation towards this aspect of the complaint, neither did it mention what steps it would take to resolve the issues, such as providing a new date for completing the damp and mould survey. Also, its response did not acknowledge its communication and record keeping failures or address how it would improve these in future.
The landlord’s records show that after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process, the resident continued reporting issues with the water leaks and plastering works until 8 November 2023.
The landlord’s efforts to put things right, including apologising and offering compensation, were not proportionate redress for the failings identified in this report in relation its handling of the leaks, reports of damp and mould, and the associated plastering repairs. Thus, orders have been made for actions it must undertake to resolve the issues.

Associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time this complaint was raised stated that a stage 1 complaint response would be issued within 15 working days, and a stage 2 complaint response would be issued within 20 working days. It should be noted that since this complaint it has amended its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out this Service’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices.
The resident’s member of parliament office (MP’s office) made a complaint to the landlord on her behalf on 8 April 2022. The landlord responded to this complaint on 5 May 2022, which was reasonable and only 2 days outside its policy time limit. On 13 May 2022, the resident’s representative forwarded on correspondence from the resident to advise that there had been further leaks, and the matter was unresolved. The representative requested an update from the landlord.
The landlord informed the MP on 17 May 2022, that its customer complaint champion would respond to the complaint. There is no evidence available to the Ombudsman to suggest that the landlord escalated the complaint and provided a response to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaint procedure. The landlord should have acknowledged and escalated the complaint and not doing so was a failing.
The resident’s representative contacted the landlord again on 28 July 2022, advising that it had not received a response to the outstanding issues. The representative requested that the landlord raise the matter as a formal complaint. The landlord provided a response to the enquiry on 8 November 2022. The Ombudsman has not had sight of evidence that the landlord also provided a formal complaint response.
The MP’s office contacted the landlord again on 13 January 2023 to advise that the resident had explained that the landlord had not undertaken any works on 20 December 2022, and it had not completed the plastering works.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence of contact from the MP’s office to the landlord on 4 subsequent occasions requesting an update. The landlord’s complaint policy notes that citizens can complain directly to MPs and elected Members. These complaints upon receipt into the council will require the landlord to write a written response directly to the MP or Councillor.
The landlord’s complaint policy does not set out whether it will respond via its complaint procedure. It is clear however from the MP’s email dated 28 July 2022 that the MP raised a formal complaint. According to the landlord’s complaint policy it should acknowledge and respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days. Furthermore, sections 5.1 and 5.13 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that a complaint must be responded to within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
This Service contacted the landlord and asked it to respond within 5 days by 28 June 2023. The landlord issued another stage 1 response on 28 June 2023. This response was 11 months from when the representative initially raised the formal complaint on 28 July 2022. This delay was unreasonably long. Furthermore, the representative had to constantly chase the landlord for updates on the complaint. This was a failing and not in line with the Code or the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident requested for the landlord to escalate her complaint on 6 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request and said it would issue a response by 3 August 2023. This Service contacted the landlord on 16 August 2023, 13 days after its stage 2 response was due and asked it to respond at stage 2 by 23 August 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 August 2023, 22 days outside its stage 2 complaint time limit.
As stated previously, in its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses, and it offered part of the £500 compensation towards these delays. This Service has assigned £150 towards the complaint handling element.
This Service finds that the landlord’s offer of compensation for its handling of the resident’s associated complaint, acknowledgement of its failings and apologies fully resolved the failings with respect to its handling of the formal complaint.

Conclusion

In January 2024, following failings identified in case 202222264, in relation to delays in completing repairs, record keeping, communication and complaint handling, the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman setting out ways it intended to prevent these failings from occurring in future, these are summarised below:
1. It said it would develop a quality assurance mechanism and metrics which would include customer satisfaction or complaints data in relation to its repairs service. It said this would allow it to hold its contractor to account for the service they provided and challenge performance, as necessary.
2. It said it would develop a reporting mechanism to identify repeat repair requests and target capital works programs for these residents. It said the mechanism would allow its repairs service to address the root cause of repeat repairs and enable the repairs service to deliver on its obligations to residents.
3. It put plans in place for robust quality complaints reviews with heads of service and its contractors. It said it would explore ways to measure tenant satisfaction and develop a recovery plan for poor performance.
4. It would set up plans to improve its records keeping and communication with residents.
Therefore, the Ombudsman has not made further orders concerning the above but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning from this case into account.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and requests for associated plastering works.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £800 broken down as follows:
  1. Our estimated £350 previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
  2. Additional £450 for the failures in relation to the leaks, damp and mould and plastering works.
  3. The landlord should make this payment directly to the resident and not to her rent account.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Inspect the resident’s flat and provide this Service and the resident with a report regarding any outstanding works with respect to the leaks and/or plastering. If these works are outstanding, it should then provide a schedule of works indicating how and when they will be completed.
2. Write to this Service and the resident confirming if a damp and mould survey has been completed on the resident’s bathroom wall. The landlord should share the results of this survey with this Service. If a survey has not been completed, it should complete a damp and mould survey and share the result with this Service, highlighting when and what remedial works would be completed if required.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord ensures that it specifies how much compensation relates to what aspect of its failings for clarity in future cases.
It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident our estimated £150 in respect of its complaint handling. The finding of reasonable redress is on the basis that this payment is made to the resident.