Birmingham City Council (202327834)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327834

Birmingham City Council

12 July 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about delays in installing a water pump in his building.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the 1-bedroom flat which is situated in one of the top floors of a high-rise building. The landlord is a local council.
3. Between June 2022 and August 2022, the landlord received multiple reports from occupants from the top floor flats, including the resident, of low or no water pressure. Repair logs show that on each occasion the landlord instructed its contractor on an emergency callout. Subsequently, the resident escalated a complaint through the landlord’s 2-stage process. In its final response in late-November 2022, the landlord advised that the problem was due to a lack of pumping stations. It said it was working on a solution, but it would be a significant undertaking. The landlord gave reassurances that, in the interim, it would keep a supply of bottled water available in the event of loss of water.
4. The resident made a second complaint by telephone on 6 October 2023. According to the summary of his complaint, he was unhappy that ongoing low water pressure was causing damage to his appliances. He also complained that bottled water was not available. As an outcome, he asked the landlord to provide an update on when the water pump would be fitted and to provide clear instructions on how to access water in an emergency.
5. In the stage 1 response dated 1 December 2023, the landlord said it was still investigating the extent of the works required and that someone from the relevant team would visit him with an update. It also committed to monitoring the provision of bottled water in the future.
6. The resident escalated his complaint via this Service because, for reasons unknown, he did not receive the stage 1 response. His grounds for a stage 2 review were therefore made on the same basis as his original complaint.
7. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 8 February 2024, it reassured that it was designing a solution to the water pressure problem and was awaiting the final costs. However, it indicated that there were other improvement works that were a priority. Finally, the landlord said that bottled water was not provided because it was not needed, due to the loss of water only occurring in times of high demand, such as summer. It said that if the water did fail, its contractors would provide bottled water.
8. After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to correspond with the landlord. In one of its further responses on 8 March 2024, the landlord advised the resident that the water pump installation was due to commence after April 2024. It also attached a claim form for the resident to complete regarding the damage to his appliances.
9. The resident referred his complaint to this Service because he was dissatisfied that the landlord was unable to give him a specific timeframe for the works, or reassurance that bottled water will be available in times of need. To resolve his complaint, he wants the landlord to provide a timescale for when the works will be completed, confirmation that bottled water is available, and to be reimbursed for his damaged appliances.

Assessment and findings

10. Under the terms of the leasehold agreement, the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the structure of the resident’s building. It also has the responsibility to carry out improvements to the block, under which the installation of a water pump would be categorised. The landlord’s repairs policy states that works that are “exceptional by their nature”, because they are not routine, are dealt with on a “case-by-case basis”. This is consistent with other social housing providers’ approach to works requiring significant planning and budgeting, often well in advance of the works being undertaken.
11. The crux of the resident’s initial complaint of 6 October 2023 was that he was unhappy with the time the landlord was taking to install the water pump. As the nature of the works fall outside of the landlord’s routine repairs, there is no specified timescale against which to assess the landlord’s actions. This Service does not have the expertise to decide what a reasonable timescale would be for the works. Therefore, this investigation is unable to determine whether the time taken was appropriate or not. Rather, it is concerned with the information the landlord provided to the resident, whether it managed his expectations, and dealt with any specific repair issues relating to the problem.
12. In the stage 1 response of 1 December 2023, it explained that the works were still in the investigation stage but gave no indication of the likely timescales involved. Not only did this response take 3 times longer than the landlord’s complaints policy says it will, it also did not provide an appropriate level of detail to reasonably address the resident’s concern. The response was therefore inappropriate, both in terms of the delays and the amount of information it provided. It was not according to the Ombudsman’s Complaint’s Handling Code (the Code), which also requires responses to be timely, and decisions to be clear.
13. The landlord’s stage 2 response was based on information that this Service provided after the resident contacted us for assistance with his complaint. In this the landlord provided more detail about the status of the works. It advised that the pumping stations had been designed and it was awaiting the final costs from its contractor. This response did not give an indication about when the works would be completed, which was what the resident was seeking. It did, however, explain that it was running renewal programmes on the resident’s building and the surrounding area, which it deemed to be of a higher priority than the water pump installation.
14. As a social landlord, with finite resources, it is reasonable for these funds to be allocated where they are considered to be most needed. Further, nothing in the available evidence indicates that the water pressure issue was ongoing. The last reported occurrence of the problem was in August 2022. Therefore, there is no indication of an urgent issue that the landlord should have considered prioritising over other works on its programme.
15. In the stage 2 response, the landlord recognised the situation was frustrating and apologised. This was reasonable given that it was unable to provide the information the resident was seeking. It is not though an indication of a service failure because nothing in the evidence suggests the explanations the landlord had given were inaccurate. As well as recognising the impact on the resident, the landlord advised him to report any specific repair issues. This was also appropriate because the landlord is still required to attend to any problems for which it is responsible.
16. After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to correspond with the landlord about its response to his request for a defined timescale. In an email on 8 March 2024, the landlord advised that it was in the final stages of agreeing costs, and that work would start in 2024. It is clear then that the landlord’s plans have moved along since its final response, as it is now in a position to confirm that the work will commence on its forthcoming programme of works. 
17. The resident originally complained that the low water pressure was causing damage to his appliances. Neither of the landlord’s responses commented on this. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate to include details about how the resident could make a claim for his damaged appliances, should he wish to. The landlord did subsequently, in its post-decision correspondence, provide the resident with details of how to claim. This either involved completing a claim form for the landlord’s insurer or pursing a claim through his own content’s insurance. Because of this, the Service will not take any further action.
18. Another aspect of the resident’s complaint was that he was not assured that bottled water will be provided if the building experiences a loss of water. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it provided a generic answer about the matter being monitored, which did not address the resident’s concern. In its stage 2 response, however, the landlord advised that bottled water had not been made available recently because the issue with the water pressure tended to occur in times of high usage, such as the summer. Based on the communal repair’s records, this was correct because these show that the issue occurred intermittently between June 2022 and August 2022. It advised that if water did fail in the resident’s block, bottled water would be provided by its contractors.
19. While the resident’s concerns are understandable, the evidence shows the landlord provided bottled water each time there was a water outage. If the landlord fails to provide water in future, it would be open to the resident to complain. As things stand, the landlord’s response was reasonable, in view of the fact that the problem has not occurred for over a year and that, when it did, bottled water was provided.
20. The landlord has apologised for the inconvenience caused by not having replaced the water pump to the resident’s building. While it has not been able to give him a specific timescale for this, as he has requested, it has explained why it has been unable to. It has also provided reassurance about access to water, should it be needed. Further, the landlord provided details about how the resident could make a claim for his damaged appliances, albeit after the complaints process ended. The landlord should have included this information in its responses. This is not, however, sufficient grounds to support a finding of maladministration.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about delays in installing a water pump in his building.