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

Birmingham City Council (202344413)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344413

Birmingham City Council

19 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

1.             The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

  1. Request to transfer to another property.
  2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  3. Concerns about damp and mould within the property.
  4. Associated complaint.

Background

2.             The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a one-bedroom bungalow.

3.             The resident is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, and osteoarthritis. She has said that she regularly suffers with chest infections.

4.             On 11 December 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that there was damp and mould growth on the floor, hall, and landing of her property.

5.             On 3 January 2024 the landlord carried out an inspection of the damp and mould within the resident’s property. Following its inspection, the landlord said it needed to install a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit within the loft at the property.

6.             On 31 January 2024 the resident raised a stage one complaint to the landlord. She described that the damp and mould within her property had made her existing health conditions worse. The resident asked the landlord to change the banding of her housing application to assist her in transferring to another property.

7.             Between 1 February 2024 and 12 February 2024 the resident chased the landlord for it to complete the works as per its inspection report, in order to address the damp and mould within the property.

8.             On 13 February 2024 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. The landlord said that its allocations team had carried out the correct assessment of the resident’s banding, as part of her request to transfer to another property. It also apologised that its contractor had taken longer than expected to complete the works to address the damp and mould at the property.

9.             The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response and requested the landlord escalate her complaint on 21 February 2024.

10.        On 4 March 2024 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould within her property, within its final response. The resident continued to chase for the landlord to carry out the repairs relating to the damp and mould at her property during this period. The landlord carried out these works on 28 March 2024.

11.        The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaints. She brought her complaints to the Ombudsman, stating that she has a number of medical issues, and was also experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB) at that time. The resident also described that the damp and mould within the property was having a negative impact on her health and has remained unresolved as she still has damp and mould on the walls and floors throughout her property. She explained that her desired outcome was for the landlord to increase the banding on her housing application, to assist her in transferring to another property. The resident would also like the landlord to resolve the issues with the damp and mould on the walls and floors within her property.

Jurisdiction

12.        What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

 

 

 

The resident’s request to transfer to another property.

13.        After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.k. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about her request for a transfer to another property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42.k. says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which fall more properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman or other dispute resolution service.

14.        This aspect of the resident’s complaint falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is because the resident’s landlord is a local authority, and the resident’s request for it to alter the banding on her transfer application is not within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider and it is instead within the LGSCO’s remit. Therefore, this aspect of the resident’s complaint may not be considered by the Housing Ombudsman. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint, then she is advised to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

15.        Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

16.        The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she has been experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB) at her property. The Ombudsman understands that this will have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. However, there is no evidence to show that the resident has raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB or that the landlord has formally responded to such a complaint.

17.        If the resident wishes to pursue a complaint about her reports of ASB, she should contact the landlord to raise a new complaint. This is because the landlord needs to have the opportunity to consider the resident’s complaint about ASB before the Ombudsman assesses it. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, she can make a new complaint to the landlord about this. If the landlord is then unable to resolve matters to her satisfaction through its complaints process, she may be able to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation at that stage once she has received the landlord’s final response to these points.

Assessment and findings

18.        When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

19.        The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’

Scope of Investigation

20.        As part of her complaint, the resident has said that her health was affected by the presence of damp and mould within her home. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can be damaging to health, particularly for those who are vulnerable. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the specific health conditions of the resident. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. This is in line with 42.f. of the Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property.

21.        The landlord’s repairs policy states that its repairs fall into the following categories:

22.        Emergency – The landlord states this is a repair where there is a danger of injury or damage to property. It will respond to this type of repair within 2 hours.

23.        Urgent – The landlord states this is a repair where it concerns protecting the health and safety of the resident and their family or the security of the property. It will respond within 7 working days to this type of repair.

24.        Routine – The landlord states it aims to complete these types of repairs within 30 days. Where the landlord needs longer due to the size of the repair or where it needs specialist materials, it will advise the resident what timescale they can expect for the repair to be completed.

25.        The landlord’s repairs policy states that all responsive repairs will be carried out by appointment. It is responsible for the internal walls, floors, and stairs within the property. The landlord is also responsible for surveys, providing advice and monitoring damp and mould within the property to help tackle the issue.

26.        On 11 December 2023 the resident reported that there was damp and mould growth on the floors, hall, and landing of her property. Between 20 December 2023 and 21 December 2023 the resident chased the landlord for it to respond to her repair. She had been unable to get through to the landlord’s dedicated damp and mould team on the telephone, so the landlord arranged for this team to carry out an inspection at the resident’s property on 3 January 2024. The resident should not have had to repeatedly chase its damp and mould team. However, it was reasonable that the landlord made an appointment for this team to carry out an inspection at her property. This appointment was arranged 23 days after the resident reported the damp and mould within her property. This appointment was appropriate because this would have been considered to be a routine repair. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to this type of repair within 30 days, as set out above.

27.        On 3 January 2024 the landlord carried out an inspection of the damp and mould within the resident’s property. The landlord said it needed to install a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit within the loft at the property. On 1 February 2024 the landlord’s contractor painted the walls in the property that had been exposed to the damp and mould. It was reasonable that the landlord identified these works and completed the painting of the walls within the resident’s property in line with its repairs policy, as set out above.

28.        Evidence reviewed by the Ombudsman shows that between January 2024 and March 2024 that the resident chased the landlord to carry out all the works it identified during its inspection. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response on 13 February 2024, it apologised for the delay in its contractor completing the installation of the positive input ventilation (PIV) unit at the resident’s property. It was appropriate the landlord apologised. However, it should have also provided the resident with a timescale for when it intended to complete the installation of the PVI unit. This is evidence of poor communication.

29.        Evidence reviewed by the Ombudsman shows that the landlord installed the positive input ventilation (PIV) unit on 28 March 2024. This was 85 days after it had completed its inspection at the resident’s property. It was also 108 days after the resident raised the repair. The Ombudsman understands that this delay will have caused the resident distress and inconvenience at that time.

 

30.        The Ombudsman has not seen any correspondence that explains why the landlord needed longer to carry out the repair. We have also not seen any explanation provided in its communication with the resident. Therefore the landlord should have carried these works out within 30 days, in line with its repairs policy, as set out above. This is evidence of poor handling of its repairs processes.

31.        For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in the property. This is because of its delay in completing the works, and its poor communication whilst managing its delay.

32.        The resident has advised the Ombudsman that since the landlord installed the positive input ventilation (PIV) unit that this has had little impact on the condition of the property. She has said the damp and mould has returned to the walls and floors throughout her property. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she has not reported these further concerns to the landlord. The Ombudsman is not commenting on the resident’s reasons for not making further reports about the recurring damp and mould. However, it would be reasonable for the landlord to have considered that the repair had been resolved following its completion of the works identified in its inspection as it was not made aware that the damp and mould had returned. The Ombudsman will, however as part of this report, make an order that the landlord carries out a further inspection of the damp and mould at the resident’s property to address the resident’s further concerns.

33.        The Ombudsman has considered its own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors. The landlord is to pay the resident £150 compensation. Under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, examples of when this level of compensation is appropriate include where the landlord’s failings cause a delay in getting the matter resolved, and where the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, as in this case.

The associated complaint.

34.        The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide a written response at stage one within 10 working days of its acknowledgment of the complaint. It will provide a written response at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint, at either stage.

 

35.        On 31 January 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of damp and mould within her property. It acknowledged this the same day. It then provided its stage one complaint response 9 working days later, on 13 February 2024. This was appropriate because it was in line with its complaints policy as set out above.

36.        On 21 February 2024 the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint. The landlord provided its final complaint response 8 working days later on 4 March 2024. This was appropriate as it provided its complaint response within its timescale of 20 working days. However, the landlord’s final response failed to address the resident’s complaint about its handling of her concerns about the damp and mould within the property. The landlord should have made sure it understood the resident’s overall complaints when it provided its response, as the resident had raised this as a cause of concern by the resident in her original complaint. The Ombudsman understands that this poor communication exacerbated the frustration caused to the resident at that time.

37.        In the landlord’s correspondence with the Ombudsman, it said that it had focussed its final response on other parts of the resident’s complaints. It accepted it did not provide a full response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property. The landlord’s communication with us has demonstrated a willingness to learn from this investigation. This is positive, although the Ombudsman has also taken into consideration that the landlord’s error in its final response meant it failed to use its complaints process to fully assess the detriment its failings had upon the resident.

38.        Therefore, for the reason described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

39.        The Ombudsman has considered our own remedies guidance, as set out above. The landlord is to pay the resident £150 compensation in line with this. Examples of this level of compensation include where the landlord’s actions resulted in a minor failure which did not affect the complaint outcome and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or fully put it right, as in this case.

Determination (decision)

40.        In accordance with paragraph 42.k. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a transfer to another property is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

41.        In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

42.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

  1. Concerns about damp and mould within the property.
  2. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

43.        The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology is to be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance that it acknowledges the service failure for which it expresses a sincere regret for its handling of:

  1. Concerns about damp and mould within the property.
  2. Associated complaint.

44.        The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation £250 payment. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:

  1. £150 for its service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property.
  2. £100 for its service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

45.        The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with the above orders within 5 weeks of the date of this report. In line with the Ombudsman’s established approach to compensation we order, the compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.

46.        The landlord is to arrange for a survey to be carried out of the damp and mould within the resident’s property, within 5 weeks of the date of this report. It is then to set out a schedule of works it is responsible for, including estimated timescales, which it is to share with the resident in writing.