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

Birmingham City Council (202323445)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323445

Birmingham City Council

31 March 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a damaged front door.

Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom house with the landlord from 7 November 2016. The resident bought the property from the landlord on 9 October 2023.
  2. The landlord raised a repair order for the resident’s front door on 14 June 2023 as he said it was damaged.
  3. The landlord’s contractor attended on 5 July 2023. It was decided the door would be repaired.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 July 2023. He said he was told previously the front door would be replaced.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 17 August 2023. It said it had decided the door could be repaired. The resident escalated his complaint the following day.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 26 September 2023. It said the door would be repaired, not replaced, as per its repair policy.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 10 October 2023. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response.

Assessment and findings

  1. On 14 June 2023 the landlord recorded the resident had reported his wooden front door was damaged. It raised a repair order the same day.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will ‘repair a door, so it fully functions and operates as appropriate and originally intended rather than renew it’. It says ‘where the level of repair required is extensive, and it is impractical or uneconomic to fully repair, then the door should be replaced’. Door repairs are considered by the landlord to be a routine repair, and it aims to do so within 30 days of the issue being reported.
  3. On 5 July 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the property. They recorded the porch sill was rotten and there was an issue with the glass at the side of it. They said a manager would inspect the door. It is not clear when a manager inspected the door, but according to the landlord’s records, they decided it would be repaired. Despite this, the landlord did not make arrangements for the door to be repaired.
  4. The resident called the landlord on 27 July 2023. He complained the front door had not been replaced. He said the door had been repaired many times, but a draft came through and he did not feel secure as it did not always open properly. He said a manager had inspected the door and told him it would be replaced. The landlord has told us it has no record of it agreeing to replace the door.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 July 2023. It said it would reply within 15 working days.
  6. The landlord recorded on 15 August 2023 that the door would be repaired on 11 September 2023, as it was deemed to be fit for purpose.
  7. On 17 August 2023 the landlord sent a response to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process. It said a manager had inspected the door and decided it was secure and fit for purpose, so it would be repaired. It said according to its records the door was not due an upgrade at that time. It did not say when it would be eligible for an upgrade. It said it would contact him on 11 September 2023 to check the door had been repaired.
  8. Analysis of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response shows it concentrated on whether the door would be replaced or not. It said the resident was not eligible for a door upgrade, but it did not say when it would be. The landlord failed to recognise it had been 2 months since he first raised the issue of the door being damaged, and it had not repaired it within its policy timescales. It did not offer an apology or redress for the delay, which was unreasonable.
  9. The resident told the landlord he was unhappy with the complaint response on 18 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation on 18 August 2023. It said it would reply within 20 working days.
  10. There is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident on 11 September 2023 to check if the door had been repaired. The resident has told us the contractor attended on 11 September 2023. He said they told him the door could not be repaired, and on 20 September 2023 measurements were taken for a new door. The landlord has not retained repair records for the property and was unable to confirm this. It is unclear why the landlord no longer holds those records.
  11. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 26 September 2023. It apologised for the delay in replying to his complaint, which was 5 working days overdue. It said a manager previously inspected the door, but they did not take measurements for a replacement, as claimed by the resident in July 2023. It again said the door would be repaired, as per its repairs policy. It said replacing the door would be the tenant’s responsibility.
  12. Analysis of the stage 2 complaint response shows the landlord apologised for its slight delay in replying, which was reasonable. However, it again failed to acknowledge the delays in repairing the door. The landlord had previously said it would repair the door on 11 September 2023, but it made no reference to that in its complaint response.
  13. The resident has told us the landlord replaced the door in early October 2023. He purchased the property from the landlord on 9 October 2023.
  14. The resident contacted us on 10 October 2023. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint.
  15. In summary, the resident told the landlord the front door was damaged around 14 June 2023, but the matter was not resolved until October 2023. The resident said he was told in July and September 2023 the door would be replaced, but the landlord denied this. Throughout the complaint process the landlord referred to its repairs policy and said the door would be repaired as it was fit for purpose. It also said it was not in its plans to upgrade the door at that time, but did not say when such a replacement was due. This showed inconsistent and confused customer service by the landlord.
  16. Although the landlord’s policy on front doors provides that it is reasonable for it to decide to repair a damaged front door if it can do so, it should compete those repairs within 30 days. The landlord failed to conduct repairs within the appropriate timeframes, and this was unreasonable. It is positive the landlord replaced the door in October 2023. However, that was several months after he first raised the issue. And in the interim period he had received conflicting information about the prospect of a replacement from the landlord.
  17. The landlord’s failure to follow its repairs policy, and its failure to recognise this in its complaint responses, will have caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as well as confusion as to what the landlord was doing to fix the issue. These failings lead to a determination of maladministration. An order for compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience to the resident has been made below.

Determination

  1. 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 a damaged front door.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £200 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged front door. This must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against a rent or service charge account.
  2. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance of these orders within the timescale set above.