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

Birmingham City Council (202314530)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314530

Birmingham City Council

30 August 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. A leak under the kitchen sink.
    2. Not having cooking facilities for an extended period of time.
  2. The resident has also complained about the landlord’s handling of her formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a 3 bedroom house. The resident has medical issues which affect her mobility.
  2. On 5 July 2023 the landlord attended to a leak in the kitchen coming from a pipe under the kitchen sink. At this time attendance it noted that the cooker needed to be moved because it was close to a window, burning the windowsill. It attended the property due to further leaks on 11 and 12 July 2023 and determined the kitchen sink basin needed to be replaced.
  3. On 12 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said that she had been informed that the pipework under the sink needed to be changed as a result of the leak. In addition, the kitchen cupboard was rotten, and she was unable to cook because the cooker needed to be moved and had been disconnected. She asked the landlord to complete the outstanding works so that she could use the kitchen. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 July 2023.
  4. On 17 July 2023 the resident’s MP emailed the landlord. It said that the resident did not have a working kitchen and asked it to look into matters urgently. On 21 July 2023 the resident contacted this Service for assistance. She complained about the delays with completing the sink repair and moving the cooker. She  said that she had been without cooking facilities for almost 3 weeks.
  5. On 27 July 2023 the landlord replaced the kitchen sink and base unit. On 8 August 2023 contractors visited the property, following which the resident contacted the landlord because she was unsure what works the contractor had attended to carry out. The resident told the landlord that previous contractors also did not seem to know what works were needed. In addition, she chased the landlord for a response to her complaint.
  6. On 16 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. In summary, it said:
    1. it had attended two repairs in July 2023 for the leak under the sink. It had determined that the resident required a replacement sink unit along with a damp and mould treatment to the affected area. It had also identified that the location of the cooker was causing heat referral to a window sill which was a health and safety issue.
    2. a contractor had attended the property on 17 July 2023 to look at the work required to install the cooker and to take measurements, but the resident had refused and said that she wanted the kitchen units replaced so that they matched the existing ones. It said that she had further refused works on 8 August 2023 and 10 August 2023.
    3. the landlord had called the resident on 9 August 2023 and explained that it would only carry out repairs which were deemed necessary, and the kitchen units were in good condition. It said the unit sizes would need to be changed to accommodate the cooker but that the doors would be white and the trims would match the replaced sink base unit. It said the worktop, which was the resident’s own, would be adjusted to fit, and the stained windowsill would be cleaned.
    4. the landlord had arranged for another contractor to attend on 16 August 2023 but it said that the resident had again refused works.
    5. the landlord would only carry out the works that had already been discussed with the resident. It asked her to make contact in order to  progress matters
  7. On 18 August 2023 the resident requested that her complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process. She felt that the current delay was as a result of the landlord’s previous actions leading up to the leak on 5 July 2023, as it had allowed damp and mould to grow behind the units and cupboards.
  8. On 15 September 2023 the resident advised the landlord that she was still without a cooker and asked when one would be installed. In response, the landlord explained that it was unable to match any cabinets that might need replacing to the original cabinets and that the priority was to fit the new cooker.
  9. On 29 September 2023 the resident contacted this Service. She said that the landlord had not provided a stage 2 complaint response, and had not addressed a damp and mould issue 12 months previously which had led to the kitchen sink unit and flooring needing to be replaced. On 3 October the resident called the landlord to say that no works had been completed and she still did not have a cooker.
  10. On 16 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. the original leak had caused damp and mould on the kitchen floor and behind the base units. The resident had confirmed that flooring, the leak, and damp works were complete.
    2. the oven was disconnected in July 2023 and it acknowledged that the resident had said she  had been reliant on takeaway food ever since.
    3. its process was to offer a hotplate, but it could not see this had happened. It apologised for this and for its failure to reinstate the cooker. It acknowledged that the resident had been without adequate use of the kitchen for many months and said that its contractor would confirm details for installing the cooker within 48 hours.
    4. it explained again that it would not replace fixtures and fittings where there was no defect and said that it hoped the compensation it had offered would cover the cost of a new worktop. 
    5. for the length of time taken to address the leak, damp, and mould in the property and continued delays in fitting the cooker, it awarded £300 compensation.
  11. On 17 October 2023 the resident advised that  she was not happy with the stage 2 complaint response and had not been offered a hot plate. She subsequently contacted this Service on 26 October 2023 for further assistance
  12. Records show that the landlord installed the cooker on 4 March 2024. The resident remains dissatisfied with the time it took and is seeking further compensation for money spent on takeaways, and for the distress and inconvenience that she says she experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints about matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. In this case, the resident stated she had raised numerous concerns with the landlord regarding a leak and damp and mould around the kitchen sink and unit areas, leading to the need the extent of repairs made. However, there is no evidence the resident complained to us or the landlord prior to July 2023. There is however evidence of damp and mould on the kitchen floor and behind the base units discussed by the landlord in May 2023 and issues with damp impacting delays in this case. Therefore, this investigation will focus on matters which occurred on or after May 2023 but will consider the wider implication of historic repairs in the context of the handling of more recent issues.

Assessment

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says urgent repairs are repairs that are concerned with protecting the health and safety of the tenant and their family or the security of the property. The completion period for these repairs shall be one, three or seven working days. All other routine repairs were be address within 30 days.
  2. The policy also states, “where a gas cooker is isolated thus preventing use by the tenant then the Gas Service and Appliance Maintenance Contractor shall provide a temporary 2 ring cooking appliance in accordance with the terms of the contract”.

Leak under the kitchen sink

  1. On 5 July 2023 the landlord attended a leak in the kitchen of the property and attempted to control it. The resident reported another leak under the sink on 11 July 2023 and the landlord attended on 11 and 12 July 2023 and noted that an issue with a pipe ball joint had “still” not been resolved. On 14 July 2023 the landlord recorded that the piping in the kitchen needed to be replaced as a result of the leak. The landlord’s records show that the kitchen sink and basin were replaced on 27 July 2023. It is unclear which ‘priority’ the landlord logged this repair as, but we would have expected this to have been addressed under the ‘urgent’ category within a week. The landlord attended promptly to all reports, but it took three weeks for the issue to be fully resolved. While this was outside of the time frames set out in the policy, the evidence does show the landlord made repeated attempts to resolve matters for the resident within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. However, the delay in resolving the leak meant the resident was without the use of her sink between 11 July 2023 and 27 July 2023. She explained that she had to use the small bathroom sink for washing up. Therefore the resident experienced inconvenience. The landlord was aware of this, for example, on 24 July 2023 the resident explained to the landlord that she was facing extreme difficulties and wanted to know when repairs would be completed. She reiterated that she had to wash up in the bathroom sink.. In its stage 2 complaint response it offered the resident £300, in part due to the delay fixing the leak. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its service failure in this respect.  However it is unclear what percentage of this amount related to the leak. Given the £300 encompassed three issues (leak, damp and mould, and the cooker) we will assume each issue was compensated at £100 each.
  3. Given that the delay in repairing the sink was not significantly outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s repair policy, this amount is in line with the our remedies guidance for when there has been a service failure of short duration that did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. As such, the landlord’s compensation offer “put right” the impact on the resident, and a finding of “reasonable redress” is made.

Not having cooking facilities for an extended period of time

  1. On 5 July 2023, when the landlord attended to the initial leak, it noted that the cooker needed to be changed as it was near a window and was “burning” the plastic on the windowsill. The cooker was subsequently disconnected at some point between 5 and 12 July 2023. This was an appropriate response when considering the  health and safety implications. Nevertheless, at the point that the cooker was disconnected the landlord ought to have checked that the resident had alternative cooking facilities and, if not, offered her a hot plate in accordance with its repairs policy.In its stage 1 complaint response dated 16 August 2023, the landlord said that a contractor attended the property on 17 July 2023 to look at the work required for the cooker and to take measurements. It said, however, that the resident refused works and that she wanted the kitchen units replaced so that they matched the existing units. It further said that she refused works again on 8 August 2023 and 10 August 2023. This is disputed by the resident. The landlord’s records show that it was unable to gain access to the property on 1 August 2023, but there are no records of the resident refusing access on other occasions.  It is unclear therefore how the landlord reached its conclusion.
  2. The landlord attended the property on 8 August 2023. The following day the resident advised the landlord that she had been given contradictory information about what the contractors were there to do. The contractors were able to access the property and there is no indication in the landlord’s records at this time that the resident refused works going ahead.
  3. On 19 September 2023 the landlord recorded a call note in which it referenced that the resident understood that the landlord could not replace the units to match exactly the existing ones and that she had agreed for the works to go ahead. When considering the extensive repair records that the landlord provided to this Service, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident’s actions contributed to a delay installing the cooker. The landlord’s records show that the cooker was ready to be installed in January 2024. However, due to the damp and mould, the flooring around the cooker and the kitchen units needed to be repaired/replaced first. In addition, tiling and plastering works were required before the cooker could be installed. When considering that the leak and associated damp were identified in July 2023, it is reasonable to consider that the landlord ought to have better planned for the works. The landlord’s approach contributed to the delays installing the cooker which eventually took place in March 2024, which compounded the resident’s frustration and inconvenience. The landlord apologised for the delay in treating the damp and mould in its stage 2 complaint response, yet further issues with damp and mould were identified in January, therefore showing the landlord did not effectively resolve this for the resident in good time.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord appropriately apologised for and the time taken to reconnect the gas cooker. It offered the resident £300 compensation and said that its contractor would contact her within 48 hours regarding installation of the cooker. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise failings and offer compensation, however another 5 months then passed before the cooker was installed which was unreasonable.
  5. Further, as noted above, it is not clear how the £300 was broken down so we assume that £100 of this was for the cooker issue. Overall, taking into account the resident’s vulnerabilities the landlord failed to demonstrate that it understood the impact on the resident in an offer of £100, and to offer suitable redress for the inconvenience that she experienced.  . In addition, delays continued for another 5 months after the stage 2 response.
  6. As such, a finding of maladministration is made along with an order for an additional £400 compensation to “put right” the impact the failings had on the resident. This is in line with our guidance on remedies, which suggests amounts of between £100 and £600 where the landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.
  7. The resident was without cooking facilities from 5 July 2023 until December 2023 when the landlord provided her with a hot plate. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it had not followed its policy in this respect. While records show the landlord emailed the resident on 11 October 2023 and asked her to request a hot plate if she needed one, this was 3 months after her cooker was disconnected which was an unreasonable period of time. As such this Service has considered the time between 5 July 2023 until 11 October 2023 in its assessment of the landlord’s actions, and whether they were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  8. The resident mentioned as part of her stage 2 escalation request that she had been reliant on takeaways during the period she was without cooking facilities.  The landlord acknowledged this in the stage 2 response, but did not make an attempt to put things right for the resident, which was unreasonable.  When considering the resident’s individual circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered compensation to cover these costs.
  9. The resident has not provided details of takeaway costs during this time, and it is not possible for us to make an assessment of what these might have been or whether they were reasonably incurred. However, given the lack of cooking facilities it is reasonable to conclude that the resident would have incurred additional food costs. Therefore an amount of £150 is ordered in recognition of this.
  10. Complaint handling
  11. The landlord’s complaints policy says that stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. The resident raised her stage 2 complaint on 18 August 2023. She contacted us on 29 September 2023 because she had not received a response. This caused her additional time and trouble.
  12. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 October 2023, 20 days outside of its policy standard. This was a service failure which the landlord did not address, apologise for, or attempt to put right for the resident in its stage 2 complaint response. This contributed to the inconvenience she experienced chasing for a response and to her uncertainty with regards to what action the landlord was taking to address her concerns.  A prompt complaint response would likely have progressed matters. As such, compensation of £50 is ordered in line with our published remedies guidance for service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak under the kitchen sink.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of not having cooking facilities for an extended period of time.
    2. A service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £600 compensation. This is made up of:
      1. £400 for the impact of the delay in reinstalling the cooker, and £150 in recognition of additional food costs incurred .
      2. £50 for the delay in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 offered in its stage 2 response. It should be noted that the finding of reasonable redress regarding the leak was made on the basis of this payment being made.
  2. The landlord should review its handling of the cooker replacement to determine the cause of the delays in this being completed, and whether it needs to take any action to avoid such delays in the future.