Birmingham City Council (202309653)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309653

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the block’s communal doors.
2. Concerns about the condition of the property’s windows.
3. Concerns about noisy pipework.
4. Concerns about the condition of the block’s communal areas.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. He acquired the lease when he bought the property in 2019. The property is a 1–bedroom flat on the first floor of a low-rise block. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has a number of vulnerabilities. They include tendonitis and a chronic pain condition (brachialgia). In his complaint correspondence, he told the landlord he had been signed off work with stress and depression.
The resident’s complaint relates to repair issues in the block and in the property. On 16 May 2023 he complained to the landlord about its handling of repairs to the block’s doors. Later that day, he contacted the Ombudsman about the doors and 3 other issues – the condition of the property’s windows, noisy pipework and the condition of the block’s communal areas. There is no indication he had complained to the landlord about these other issues.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It acknowledged that the door repairs were delayed but it did not award any compensation. Later, the resident asked the Ombudsman for an update about the other issues he had raised with us directly. We subsequently notified the landlord about these complaint points on 5 July 2023. On 25 July 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It addressed 2 of the 4 issues we had relayed to the landlord. It said the resident’s complaint about the block’s doors and the property’s windows was “partially justified”. It did not award the resident any compensation.
The resident updated the Ombudsman on 18 August 2023. He told us the landlord had not adequately resolved any of the concerns he had raised. On 5 September 2023 we asked the landlord to ensure it had responded to each of the issues from his initial complaint and our first notification to the landlord. We said it should reissue its stage 2 response if necessary. On 20 September 2023 the landlord issued a further response at stage 2. It agreed with some aspects of the resident’s complaint and awarded him a total of £100 in compensation.
The resident updated us by phone and email in December 2024. He told us the windows were his main concern and no further work had been done on them. He said the block’s communal areas had deteriorated following his complaint. He also said he had been living in substandard conditions for a long period of time and he had “suffered mentally, physically and financially” as a result. He wanted the landlord to pay compensation, address his additional heating costs, and complete some improvement works to the property and the block.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence confirms he has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts, financial losses or negligence.
In his correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident referenced some additional concerns. He said the communal doors were noisy and, because they lacked draught prevention equipment, the block was excessively cold. The landlord has not addressed these issues in its complaint responses. In line with our remit and out of fairness to both parties, this report has focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint. It may help to explain that, in general, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. We also need sufficient information to make a full and fair assessment of any complaint points.
Unless otherwise stated, any additional issues that the resident has raised are beyond the scope of our investigation. If he remains unhappy, he can bring his concerns to the Ombudsman after they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the block’s communal doors

Repair records show there was an issue with the block’s entry fob system in late April 2023. The specific details were unclear from the repair records that the landlord provided. A subsequent record shows the resident reported that the block’s entry systems were not working on 11 May 2023. He says the landlord told him it would respond to the matter as an emergency repair. The landlord’s repair policy shows it should respond to emergency repairs (where there is a danger of injury or damage) within 2 hours. From the landlord’s records, it is unclear if it raised the works as an emergency repair. This is based on the expected completion date of 22 May 2023 that was assigned to the works.
On 16 May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. Complaint notes said he was concerned about his safety. This was on the basis he had previously experienced antisocial behaviour and the block’s doors were not secure. The notes also said he had chased the repair around 4 times. On the same day, the landlord contacted its contractor and the contractor completed a repair. This was 5 days after the resident’s initial report. The evidence suggests the doors were unlocked during the interim period. This was an inappropriate timescale in the circumstances. Since the resident had chased the landlord multiple times, the evidence suggests it missed several opportunities to expedite the works.
Our records show the resident approached the Ombudsman with various concerns later the same day. They included wider concerns around the block’s communal doors. He said there had been problems with the front and rear doors since he moved to the property in 2019. In particular, he said the rear door had never been fully secure because one of its magnetic locks was defective. He also said his key fob had stopped working around 3 weeks prior and it took the landlord 5 days to replace it. There is no indication the resident raised any of these issues in his complaint to the landlord. As a result, there is no evidence of any related failures by the landlord at this time.
The resident updated the landlord on 17 May 2023. He said a repair that was completed the previous morning had subsequently failed. He also said he had reported another repair but the landlord failed to attend within its emergency timescale. As a result, he was locked out of the block for around 4 hours because his key fob stopped working. He also said he eventually accessed the property by climbing a wall/fence and the situation had made him late for work. That day, the landlord raised a new repair order and relayed his comments to its contractor. These were reasonable actions in the circumstances.
On 23 May 2023 the contractor updated the landlord. It accepted it had failed to attend a repair within the necessary timescale. It said vandalism had caused the issue with the door entry system. It also said it had completed 2 repairs to the doors and tested the entry system afterwards. The contractor told the landlord it had called the resident to apologise for its “service failure”. It also assured the landlord it had reported the performance issues it identified to a relevant manager. This was to improve its performance going forwards. Since it was acting as the landlord’s agent, the landlord was responsible for any service failures by the contractor.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 24 May 2023. It echoed the information in the contractor’s update to the landlord. It apologised to the resident for the inconvenience he was caused by its service failure. It did not offer him any compensation. This approach was in line with the landlord’s applicable compensation policy, which prevented the landlord from awarding any compensation for distress and inconvenience. Later, in October 2023, the landlord updated this policy because it accepted it was unfair. Given the impact to the resident, an apology was inadequate and the landlord’s response was unreasonable.
There is no indication the resident attempted to escalate his complaint with the landlord. The evidence suggests he contacted the Ombudsman for an update instead. We relayed his wider concerns about the block’s doors to the landlord on 5 July 2023 and asked it to respond to them. Subsequently, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and arranged an inspection. These were appropriate steps in the circumstances. On 26 July 2023 the resident reported a separate issue with the block’s intercom. It related to a fault with the mute function. The resident said the fault caused the door to open in certain circumstances. The landlord raised a corresponding repair order 2 days later.
The evidence suggests the landlord inspected the block’s doors on 27 July 2023. The landlord has provided a key inspection record from this date. The record did not make any reference to the block’s communal doors. This was concerning in the circumstances. It points to problems with the landlord’s record keeping.
On 28 July 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It apologised again for the delay in May 2023. It said it had checked the block’s front and rear doors and they were “both found to be in working order”. It also said the doors were susceptible to damage because they were in constant use. It advised the resident to report any door related repair issues as soon as possible. In summary, the landlord said the complaint was “partially justified”. The response wording shows this was due to the delay it had previously identified at stage 1. Since an apology alone was still disproportionate given what went wrong, the landlord’s response was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances.
The resident updated the Ombudsman on the same day. He said the block’s rear door “[had] now been repaired”. This was around 23 days after the Ombudsman relayed his concerns to the landlord. The landlord’s repairs policy shows it should complete routine repairs within 30 days. The evidence shows it completed the repair within an appropriate timescale.
In early August 2023 the parties exchanged emails about the intercom fault. The resident said the landlord’s contractor had failed to attend within its relevant timescale. The landlord replied that its records showed the repair was completed as scheduled. From the evidence both parties provided, the Ombudsman was unable to clarify what happened. Ultimately, the landlord offered to raise a new formal complaint on 17 August 2023. This was a reasonable step in the circumstances. On the next day, the resident told us there were ongoing issues with the intercom. He also said the landlord had not resolved any of his other complaint points (windows, pipework, communal area).
Later that month, the resident responded to the landlord’s offer to raise a new formal complaint about the intercom. He asked it to include the matter in his existing complaint or raise a new case if necessary. It is unclear if the landlord responded. It should have explained its approach to the resident and progressed matters accordingly. In September 2023 we told the landlord to review its previous stage 2 response and ensure it had responded to all the relevant complaint points. Our correspondence referenced the resident’s concerns about the intercom.
On 20 September 2023 the landlord issued a further response at stage 2. It acknowledged the resident had referenced a long term problem with the block’s rear door. It also acknowledged he had reported problems with the intercom system. The landlord did not address these issues in any detail. It said the doors were working correctly during the inspection on 27 July 2023 and they appeared to be working currently. It also said its repair timescales could be impacted by the nature of any reported faults. Ultimately, the landlord awarded the resident £50 in compensation. This was on the basis it had taken 5 days to replace his key fob in April 2023 (presumably this impacted his ability to access the block in the meantime).
From the evidence both parties provided, there was no indication the landlord failed to respond accordingly to any historical reports about a magnetic lock on the block’s rear door. Similarly, the Ombudsman was unable to evidence any failures in relation to the intercom. However, contrary to our previous request, the further response did not address either of these issues in any detail. This was a procedural issue related to the landlord’s complaint handling, which will be considered in the relevant section below. Ultimately, the landlord has addressed a 5–day delay and the subsequent issues linked to vandalism in May 2023. Its responses show it agreed with both aspects of the resident’s complaint. It awarded him £50 in compensation to address the initial delay and apologised for the subsequent issues.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. Given the flawed approach in the landlord’s applicable compensation policy, we also referred to our own guidance on remedies.
While it attempted to put things right, the landlord’s apology and offer of £50 in compensation were both disproportionate. The evidence confirms its respective failures had a significant impact on the resident. It shows he experienced significant distress and inconvenience over a combined period of around 12 days in total. It suggests he contacted the landlord on multiple occasions during this time. Given the disparity, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. The Ombudsman has awarded a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. It reflects the evidence we have seen and our own guidance on remedies. As mentioned, the landlord later accepted that its applicable compensation policy was unfair.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property’s windows

On 14 October 2022 the landlord raised a works order to address the property’s windows. The repair notes said “leasehold flat all windows”. No further information was provided. The records indicate the works were completed by 25 November 2022. From the landlord’s records, it is unclear what issue had been reported and what repairs were carried out. This is concerning in the circumstances. Having checked the landlord’s records, there is no evidence of any other window repairs within the 12–month period before October 2022. The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited by various factors including the length of time that has passed since the events in question.
In internal correspondence on 6 March 2023, the landlord confirmed it had spoken to the resident about a recent window repair. It said he was unhappy with the quality of the works. The landlord felt a supervisor should inspect them. It said the resident was also unhappy about a lack of communication and the level of noise that was audible through the windows. It said it had told him there was nothing the landlord could do about the noise. The landlord received a reply on the same day. It said any secondary glazing (for soundproofing) was the resident’s responsibility. However, some of the noise could be due to windows that were not closing properly or the internal seals could be breaking down.
The landlord’s leaseholder handbook shows the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and shared areas of the block in good repair. This includes the external parts of the windows but not the glass panes or “fasteners”. Based on the handbook, the landlord’s internal advice was partly accurate. However, it should have inspected the windows to check its previous works, assess their operation and check the condition of the seals. There is no evidence to show it completed any related inspections around this time. This was unfair to the resident and contrary to its own internal advice. There was a gap in the evidence at this point.
On 16 May 2023 the resident told us about various issues with the windows. He said they appeared to be badly fitted and they “let in a lot of noise and cold”. He told us there was movement in the living room window frame and the bedroom window was often covered in condensation during the winter. He said this caused black mould to grow on his bedroom ceiling even though he used a dehumidifier. He also said heat escaped from the property quickly when he turned his heating off and the bathroom was especially cold. Other key points were:
1. The resident had contacted the landlord around 6 times about the windows (presumably over the years).
2. The landlord previously replaced some seals but they did not fit properly and the works had damaged the interior window frames.
3. There were problems with the landlord’s appointment scheduling. It had previously missed appointments, arrived at the wrong time, or attended the wrong address.
We notified the landlord about the resident’s window complaint on 5 July 2023. Subsequently, it attended the property on 27 July 2023 to assess the windows. This was around 5 months after it documented that a supervisor should inspect its previous repair works. Given the landlord’s 30–day timescale for routine repairs, the evidence points to an inappropriate delay of around 4 months. It also suggests that the inspection was prompted by the Ombudsman’s intervention. This should not have been necessary and it likely caused additional inconvenience for the resident. Ultimately, the delay was unfair and the resident was impacted.
The landlord relayed its inspection findings during an internal email on 27 July 2023. It said that, contrary to the resident’s assertion, there was no sign of damage to the windows. It also said there was no sign of any draughts from them. In addition, it noted that the “opening casements” on the windows were catching because the resident was not fully opening the lever when he operated them. The landlord’s other key points were:
1. The “only ill-fitting window seal was in the bathroom”. An opening casement needed to be adjusted as it was “ill fitting” (the resident has told us the adjustment related to the living room window). Routine repair orders should be raised to address both issues.
2. The resident had reported that the property’s internal temperature never exceeded 22°C. The landlord had noted the property’s thermostat was set to this level.
3. Double glazing would not completely remove any noise from outside.
4. Condensation “would occur” on the bedroom window because the resident did not ventilate the room at night.
The landlord’s inspection findings show it found some evidence to support the resident’s complaint. While the landlord was entitled to rely on its operative’s professional opinion, the findings lacked detail in relation to some key aspects. The findings did not say which window the resident felt had been damaged or what the operative found when they inspected that specific window. Similarly, the findings did not make any reference to mould (a potential health hazard) and they did not include any supporting images. The wording shows the operative had not seen any condensation on the bedroom window. It is reasonable to conclude this made it difficult to assess the levels that were occurring. Overall, the findings arguably lacked a degree of thoroughness.
The landlord addressed the resident’s window complaint in a stage 2 response that was issued on 28 July 2023. It largely relayed its recent inspection findings. It confirmed repair orders had been raised to address the bathroom window seal and to adjust the (unspecified) casement. It agreed that the resident’s complaint was “partially justified” based on these repair issues. It did not attempt to measure the resulting impact to the resident. Aside from the above identified delay of around 4 months, it is reasonable to conclude that repeat visits (to rectify issues) were inconvenient for the resident. The landlord’s approach was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances.
The resident replied to the landlord 2 days later. He said it had attended the windows 3 times between 27 and 28 July 2023. In addition, he was given contradictory information during the visits and there was conflicting information in the landlord’s response. He felt a casement would not need to be repaired if the windows had been fitted properly. He also felt the level of condensation on the bedroom window was consistent with blown seals. Other key points were:
1. The landlord did not observe any draughts because the visit took place in mid-summer. It should inspect the property on a cold and windy day.
2. The living room window casement was still catching even when the lever was fully open.
3. The resident did not use a thermostat to control the property’s heating.
4. He ventilated the bedroom using the vents in the window.
5. He did not expect any external noise to be removed entirely. He expected it to be substantially reduced.
The Ombudsman is not expert in construction matters. We typically rely on the professional opinion of relevant specialists. We checked the landlord’s records from around the time of the inspection. There is no evidence to show it received any conflicting recommendations about the condition of the windows or the repairs that were necessary. However, some of the resident’s concerns were understandable in the circumstances. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s findings may have been more accurate if it had assessed the windows in adverse weather conditions. On that basis, the landlord should have reasonably offered to arrange a further inspection. There is no indication it engaged with the resident’s concerns. This was unfair and unreasonable.
Repair records suggests works to the window casement and seal were completed by 8 September 2023. There is no evidence of any related delays. Similarly, there is no evidence the resident was prompted to chase these repairs. Overall, there is no evidence of any failures by the landlord at this point.
On 20 September 2023 the landlord issued a further response at stage 2. It referenced the same inspection it had referred to in its previous response. It said its operative had not noted any issues around mould or condensation during their visit. Although it largely reiterated its previous position, the landlord did not acknowledge that its previous response had agreed with aspects of the resident’s complaint. Since it did not acknowledge any failures or attempt to put things right, the response was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances. There was a gap in the evidence at this point.
The resident updated the Ombudsman in December 2024. He said there had been no further works to the windows. He largely reiterated his previous concerns. He referenced cold, noise, condensation, mould and quality issues. He reiterated that there was movement in the living room window frame. He said the movement occurred when he cleaned it. Ultimately, he referenced a number of concerning repair issues. His comments show matters have not been conclusively resolved to date. Our investigation took place around 17 months after the landlord completed an inspection that was arguably flawed. There is no evidence to show it inspected the windows again during the interim period. As mentioned, there is no indication that the landlord engaged with the resident’s concerns about the accuracy of its inspection (due to the external weather conditions).
Overall, the evidence shows the landlord was responsible for delays and repeat visits that were likely avoidable. There is also evidence of communication failures. Significantly, the landlord’s key inspection was arguably flawed. The landlord did not identify the full extent of its failures or attempt to put things right for the resident. It is reasonable to conclude that this added to his distress. Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The Ombudsman has awarded a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. It reflects the evidence we have seen and our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about noisy pipework

On 16 May 2023 the resident told us about frequent banging noises from the property’s pipework. He said the issue often occurred late at night. This implied it was affecting his sleep. He attributed the problem to “water hammer”. He felt it was dangerous and could potentially cause a significant amount of damage. He said the problem had been ongoing for at least a month, he had contacted the landlord several times and it failed to attend within the timescale it had provided. He also told us the landlord had visited the property to assess the matter. His other key points were:
1. The landlord initially felt the problem was coming from a neighbour’s home.
2. It subsequently visited the neighbour’s home and did not identify any issues.
3. It had not updated the resident since its visit to the neighbour.
We were unable to find any information about the above referenced visits in the landlord’s repair and other records. This was concerning in the circumstances.
We notified the landlord about the resident’s complaint on 5 July 2023. Subsequently, the landlord assessed the noisy pipework during a visit to the property on 27 July 2023. Soon afterwards, the resident told us the landlord’s inspecting operative had resolved the problem by turning a stopcock behind the toilet. He said this had reduced the water pressure inside the property. The evidence shows the visit was completed in line with the landlord’s routine repair timescale. There is no indication it should have been treated as an emergency repair. There was no evidence of any failures by the landlord at this point.
The resident updated the Ombudsman on 18 August 2023. There is no evidence to show he contacted the landlord about the pipework during the interim period. He told us that, several days after the operative’s visit, he adjusted the stopcock again because the water pressure was too low. He also said this had caused the banging noise to return. He felt the landlord should fit an “expansion vessel” to resolve it. We asked the landlord to respond to his concerns on 5 September 2023. Our correspondence included the resident’s original email to the Ombudsman from 16 May 2023. This shows the landlord was aware of his concerns about an initial delay and communication issues.
On 20 September 2023, the landlord addressed the pipework in its further response at stage 2. It said its operative had established there was a problem with the property’s stopcock and this was causing the noise. It also said the problem was restricted to the resident’s property and it was his responsibility to repair the stopcock. It advised him to contact a plumber. This response did not address any of the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s initial handling of the matter. Since it did not dispute them or provide any evidence to the contrary, the Ombudsman has relied on the resident’s version of events.
The landlord’s leaseholder handbook includes a responsibility table. It details various common repairs and sets out which party is responsible for addressing them. It shows the resident is responsible for replacing washers on the stopcock inside the property. This implies he is responsible for maintaining it. However, in the event of a burst or leaking water pipe the landlord is responsible for repairs “up to and including [the] main stopcock”. In this case, there is no indication any of the pipework was burst or leaking. Based on the handbook, the Ombudsman is unable to fairly say that the landlord was obliged to repair the stopcock.
However, the evidence suggests the resident was impacted by various issues with the landlord’s handling of his initial report. The landlord should have addressed these issues and attempted to put things right. Since it did not do this, its response was both unfair and unreasonable. It is reasonable to conclude the response compounded the resident’s frustration. Overall, the above identified failures amount to maladministration by the landlord. Again, the Ombudsman has awarded a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right for the resident. It reflects the evidence we have seen.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the block’s communal areas

On 16 March 2023 the resident told us about problems with the block’s communal stairwell and corridor. He referenced a “filthy floor”, peeling paint, and a lack of grip on the stairs. He said there was a “severe lack of maintenance and repair” in his part of the block. From the evidence both parties provided, there is no indication the landlord was aware of this complaint or any related repair issues at this point. As a result, there is no evidence it was responsible for any associated failures at this time.
Repair records show the landlord raised an emergency repair on 5 June 2023. The notes said the resident had reported a lack of grip on the stairs and they needed to be made safe. The records indicate the landlord completed a repair within 24 hours. Since the report involved a potential safety issue, this was a reasonable timeframe. Around 2 weeks later, the resident emailed us numerous images that appeared to show dirt and marks in the block’s communal areas.
We notified the landlord about the resident’s complaint on 5 July 2023. Due to a complaint handling issue, it did not respond for around 2 months. In the meantime, it did respond to a similar complaint on 29 July 2023. Its corresponding stage 1 response was issued under a different complaint reference. Its wording shows the resident had raised this complaint directly with the landlord. The landlord did not supply a copy of his related correspondence.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would monitor its cleaning staff to improve cleanliness standards in the block. It also said it would arrange a site visit to inspect damaged or missing edging strip on the communal stairs. It did not reference any repairs that had been completed earlier that month. Similarly, it did not acknowledge that its inspecting operative had visited the property 2 days prior (the evidence suggests the operative assessed the property’s windows and pipework, along with the block’s communal doors. It is reasonable to conclude they observed the communal areas as well). In the circumstances, the response may have caused some confusion for the resident. Subsequent events will show it also contained some incorrect information.
On 20 September 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint via the Ombudsman. It did not address the complaint in any detail. It only said it had arranged an inspection to identify and address any relevant issues. This was the same resolution the landlord had offered around 3 months beforehand. Again, the response did not reference any previous inspections or findings. It is unclear if the landlord was aware it had previously promised to arrange an inspection. Based on the repeated action, it is reasonable to conclude the response may have caused frustration or confusion for the resident.
Repair records suggest the landlord installed edging strips on the communal staircase in late November 2023. This was around 4 months after it had promised to inspect the stairs. Given its 30–day timescale for routine repairs, the evidence points to an unreasonable delay of at least 3 months. There was a gap in the evidence following this repair.
In May 2024 the landlord supplied its case evidence to the Ombudsman. It included some of its internal correspondence. The correspondence said the block did not receive any communal cleaning services because its residents “[had] elected to clean the block themselves”. The case evidence also included an annual estimate of the resident’s service charges. It related to the financial year 2023-2024. The estimate shows the resident would not be charged for any cleaning or caretaking services. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord was not obliged to clean the communal areas. It should have explained this during its stage 1 response in July 2023. It is reasonable to conclude the resident was impacted by its lack of clarity.
The resident updated the Ombudsman in December 2024. He said the landlord was obliged to paint the stairwell every 6 years under the terms of the lease. He also said the current 6–year period would end in April 2025 and decorating works would be due then. The landlord did not provide a full copy of the lease agreement. There were no equivalent terms in its leaseholder handbook. From the evidence provided, there is no indication the landlord has failed to comply with any obligations to redecorate the communal areas within a certain timeframe.
Overall, the evidence points to unnecessary repeated actions by the landlord along with an unreasonable delay of at least 3 months. The landlord also gave the resident incorrect information in a stage 1 response. It said it would monitor its cleaning staff to improve standards in the block. However, the evidence shows the block residents had opted out of any cleaning services. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was a source of confusion or frustration for the resident. The landlord did not identify any of its failures or attempt to put things right. This was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances. These failures amount to maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Based on the period between 16 and 24 March 2023, it took the landlord 6 working days to respond to the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy is available on its website. It shows the landlord should respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. The evidence confirms it issued a stage 1 response within an appropriate timescale.
On 5 July 2023 we notified the landlord about the resident’s additional complaint points (the complaint should have included 4 issues in total). On 13 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement. It detailed the landlord’s understanding of his complaint. It said the complaint involved 2 issues (windows and communal doors). This shows the landlord had overlooked the other complaint points that were listed in the Ombudsman’s correspondence. In mitigation, the resident replied to the landlord’s acknowledgement on 14 July 2023. This was to highlight an inaccuracy in its understanding. The resident’s email did not mention his other complaints about noisy pipework or the communal areas.
Despite the mitigating circumstances, the evidence shows the landlord did not adequately engage with the Ombudsman’s correspondence. Had it done so, it should have reasonably queried the scope of the complaint. It could have contacted the resident or the Ombudsman to establish the relevant details. This would have been a proactive and thorough approach. Subsequent events show the resident was impacted by a delay that stemmed from the landlord’s failure to engage accordingly.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 28 July 2023. This was 17 working days after the Ombudsman’s notification. The landlord’s policy shows it should respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage 2. The evidence shows the stage 2 response was issued within an appropriate timeframe. The relevant version of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) was published in March 2022. Section 5.6 said “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. As it overlooked 2 key complaint issues, the landlord’s response was inappropriate.
On 29 July 2023 the resident replied to the landlord’s complaint handler. His detailed email disputed various aspects of the landlord’s findings. In his concluding remarks, he said he was still recovering from injuries that he sustained when he fell down the block’s communal stairs in 2022. He attributed them to “negligence” on the landlord’s part. He also said he was recently “signed off work with stress and depression”. He said the landlord was partly responsible for a decline in his health and wellbeing. These were serious allegations/issues and they warranted a proper response from the landlord.
There is no evidence to show the landlord engaged with these comments. Where a resident holds a landlord responsible for health impacts (including injuries) or damage to personal belongings, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost them to its insurance team or process. In this case, the landlord should have asked the resident if his injury concerns were already being handled accordingly. If they were not, it should have signposted him to the correct process in line with the approach outlined above.
This same approach also applied to the resident’s more recent mental health issues. If it was unsure what to do, the landlord could have asked him how he wanted it to respond to them. It is noted his email said he wanted a significant amount of compensation. His comments confirm the health related matters were best suited to the landlord’s insurance process. If it had engaged accordingly, the landlord could have asked the resident if he needed any additional support. The evidence suggests it missed an opportunity to improve his situation by signposting him to any relevant internal or external support services.
There is no indication that the landlord has addressed the resident’s injury concerns to date. Based on the timing of this assessment, the evidence points to an inappropriate delay of around 17 months. It is noted that insurance claims can be time sensitive. Given the above, the landlord’s lack of engagement was unfair, unreasonable and inappropriate.
In mid-August 2023 the resident told us that none of his complaint points had been resolved. On 5 September 2023 we asked the landlord to review its previous stage 2 response. The landlord issued a further response at stage 2 on 20 September 2023. It acknowledged there had been a delay as its previous response was incomplete. It awarded the resident £50 in related compensation. Based on the period between 28 July and 20 September 2023, the delay was around 8 weeks in total. Given its duration and the corresponding impact to the resident, the landlord awarded a reasonable and proportionate amount of compensation to put things right.
The evidence shows there were issues with the response. In relation to the communal area, the landlord did not attempt to establish a timeline of events, identify any specific failures, or quantify the resulting impact to the resident. It did not reach a decision on the complaint or provide a supporting rationale. Section 5.16 of the Code shows landlords must include a decision and the reasons for the decision. The response was unfair and contrary to the Code. It is noted the response did not include clear decisions on any of the resident’s complaint points. This is also contrary to section 5.16 of the Code.
As mentioned, the response overlooked key aspects of the resident’s pipework and communal door related complaints. This was unfair to the resident. The response is further evidence of an inappropriate lack of engagement and thoroughness. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s approach reduced its chances of resolving matters through its own internal complaints process, undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling, and damaged the landlord and tenant relationship.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was unfair, unreasonable, inappropriate and contrary to the Code at times. In general, the landlord showed a concerning lack of thoroughness and engagement. These problems were evident at various points during the resident’s complaint journey. They were especially evident when the landlord failed to engage with his comments about a serious injury or more recent health and welfare issues. Ultimately, the landlord’s approach reduced the effectiveness of its complaints process and undermined the landlord and tenant relationship. The evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord was previously subject to a special investigation by the Ombudsman and we published our findings in January 2023. Since then, the landlord has undertaken various measures to improve its performance. It has done this in cooperation with the Ombudsman. As a result, we have not made extensive orders to address the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The landlord’s record keeping

Record keeping issues impacted several aspects of the landlord’s operations. The evidence confirms its repairs and complaint handling were affected. As mentioned, its repair history did not record any pipework related repair visits around June 2023. In July 2023, its stage 1 complaint handler appeared to be unaware of previous works and inspections that were directly relevant to their response. Many of the landlord’s repair records did not capture the attending operative’s findings or detail the works that had been carried out. Its inadequate records made it difficult to keep track of events. The above information suggests the landlord had difficulty interpreting its own records.
The evidence shows the landlord repeated some of its repair actions. It is reasonable to conclude that missing or inadequate records made repeated visits/actions more likely. Similarly, there is evidence that it failed to follow up its actions at times. It is noted the resident referenced repeated visits and a lack of action in his initial correspondence to the Ombudsman. It is reasonable to conclude that inadequate records make it more difficult to follow up actions effectively.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, inspections and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. Failure to keep adequate records indicates a landlord’s complaint processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policies and adhere to them, as should contractors or managing agents.
Overall, the landlord’s record keeping was concerning and inappropriate. The evidence shows it hindered the landlord’s operations and impacted the resident. It also hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation at times. Given the circumstances, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

Review of policies and practice

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints with this landlord involving record keeping issues. As a result of these, the Ombudsman issued a wider order to the landlord under paragraph 54.f of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case(s) already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to the landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this latter case that require further action.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the block’s communal doors.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property’s windows.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about noisy pipework.
4. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the block’s communal areas.
5. Complaint handling.
6. Record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing for the key failures that are identified in this report. The landlord should share a copy of its letter with the Ombudsman within 6 weeks (adjusted for the Christmas period).
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to inspect the property’s windows within 6 weeks. The inspection should be completed by a senior surveyor/specialist. It should address any repair issues raised by the resident. The landlord must share a comprehensive inspection report with the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks. Any identified repair issues should be addressed accordingly.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,350 in compensation within 6 weeks. Compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to his reports of repairs to the block’s communal doors. If it has already paid this amount, the landlord is free to deduct the £50 that it awarded during its internal complaints process.
2. £500 for any distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to his concerns about the condition of the windows.
3. £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to his concerns about noisy pipework.
4. £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to his concerns about the condition of the communal areas.
5. £350 for any distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. If it has already paid this amount, the landlord is free to deduct the £50 that it awarded during its internal complaints process.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to contact the resident about his outstanding concerns (personal injury, negligence, repair issues related to the intercom) and any additional issues. This is to ensure they are addressed accordingly. It should signpost the resident to its insurance team/process. At the resident’s request, it should raise a new complaint to address any overlooked issues if necessary. During this contact, it should check to ensure it has accurate information about the resident’s vulnerabilities on its systems. The landlord must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks.