Birmingham City Council (202103060)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103060

Birmingham City Council

1 April 2022


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: 
  1. Repairs to the resident’s heating system.
  2. The associated complaint.

     Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a building comprised of similar properties.
  2. The resident stated that his heating broke down on 17 January 2021. He made a phone call to the landlord on 18 January 2021 to report this. He was informed that a contractor would arrive by the end of the day, however, a contractor did not arrive. This process was repeated on 19 and 20 January 2021, whereby the resident contacted the landlord regarding his repair, he was advised that a contractor would arrive by the close of day, but again no contractor attended. He also informed the landlord that his sickle cell trait made him vulnerable to the cold weather and he therefore needed to use the heating.
  3. The resident said that as a contractor had not arrived by the close of day on 20 January 2021, he contacted the landlord’s out-of-hours service and informed it of his heating issues and health condition. He was advised a contractor would arrive as an emergency that evening; however, a contractor did not attend. The resident chased the repair on 21 January 2021, because a contractor did not attend by the close of the day; he contacted the landlord’s out-of-hours service and informed it that he would be temporarily leaving the property, as it was too cold to remain in the home. The resident left his contact details with the landlord and requested to be contacted when the contractors arrived. No contractors attended on this date.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in February 2021 as he was unsatisfied with the handling of his repair. He stated that contractors attended the property twice on 28 January and 28 February 2021, without notice and left calling cards. Following this, the resident continued to report that the issue had not been resolved. On 1 March 2021, contractors attended the property and found the heating to be in working order. The landlord responded to the resident on 12 April 2021, the complaint response was not provided to this Service.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 30 April 2021. The landlord declined the complaint escalation internally on 4 May 2021, stating that the same complaint had been dealt with at all stages of its procedure.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 25 June 2021 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repair and stated it had not responded to his complaint regarding the delays.

Assessment and findings

     The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s heating system.

  1. In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.
  2. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installations in the resident’s home for space heating and heating water. The landlord’s repair policy states that emergency repairs should be attended to within two hours. Urgent repairs should be attended to within one, three or seven days depending on the severity of the repair issue and routine repairs should be completed within 30 days. The landlord would be expected to keep the resident regularly updated on the progress of the works, explain any delays and provided expected timescales for when the repair would be completed.
  3. According to the landlord’s repair policy an urgent repair is defined as: repairs that are concerned with protecting the health and safety of the tenant and their family or the security of the property. The resident informed the landlord of his vulnerable state due to his health condition. The landlord acknowledged that it did not record the repair as urgent, which may have contributed to the delays. It should be noted that, in the landlord’s cover letter to the Ombudsman, it stated there were no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. It would be appropriate for the landlord to update its records to include his sickle cell condition in response to this decision to ensure it can respond appropriately to any future repair requests.

 

  1. The evidence suggests that the resident first reported the repair issues regarding his heating in January 2021. Following this, the resident advised that several phone calls were made regarding the repair over a few weeks and due to the delays, including having to temporarily vacate the home, he raised a formal complaint in February 2021. There is a lack of evidence regarding the communication that took place as the landlord has not provided any call logs or communication records for that time period. The Ombudsman relies on documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. It is not appropriate that the landlord did not keep detailed records of all communications during the complaints process.

 

  1. The resident complained that the contractors attended the property without notice on two occasions. The evidence shows that contractors did attend the property a total of three times, on 28 January 2021 and 28 February 2021, but were unable to gain access to the property. The resident made a further complaint on 1 March 2021, in which the contractors attended and found the boiler to be in working order. The landlord’s repairs policy states that, all responsive repairs should be carried out by appointment. Tenants should be offered an appointment at the time the repair is reported. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have informed the resident of the dates the contractors would be attending to the repair, so that he could allow access. However, there is a lack of evidence that it did so and this resulted in additional delays to the repair as the resident did not know when he needed o be at the property to allow access.

 

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that, where the breakdown of central heating system or other heating appliance cannot be remedied on the same working day, and the tenant has no other form of heating, a temporary loan heater may be provided. According to the evidence provided, the landlord explained in its final complaint response on 7 July 2021, that the delays to the heating repair were due to heavy snow during that time period. The landlord is not at fault for delays due to issues beyond its control. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have informed the resident of the reasons for the delay, apologised, and offered a temporary heating solution. It would have been appropriate, due to the resident’s health condition and vulnerabilities, for the landlord to have considered offering temporary accommodation if it was unable to provide temporary heaters as result of the difficulties in accessing the property during a period of bad weather. There is, again, a lack of evidence to show that it did so

 

 

  1. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as repair or communication logs. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.

 

  1. In summary, there has been significant failures by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of heating repairs. There were extensive unexplained delays and a lack of clear communication from the landlord which resulted in an unnecessary level of involvement by the resident who needed to repeatedly chase repairs and complaint responses. The delay in resolving the heating or offering another remedy, caused further inconvenience to the resident, who needed to leave the property on occasion as it was too cold for him to remain there.
  2. The landlord should offer £300 compensation to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the repair delays and its poor communication. This is in line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests that we may make awards ranging from £250-£700 for failures by the landlord such as: residents repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant or repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving complaint.
  3. It is also recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes to ensure that it has adequate records of repairs and communication with a resident related to their complaint, so that these can be used to resolve ongoing repair issues and so they can be made available if the landlord or the Ombudsman needs to investigate a complaint about repair issues.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a formal complaints process consisting of two stages. It states that it will investigate and respond to complaints within 15 working days, by the relevant department and should a resident remain dissatisfied with the stage two response, it would be looked at by an independent officer and a response should be given within 20 working days. This Service expects that if at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new timescale in which the resident could receive a response.
  2. In considering a landlord’s response to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord acted in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The evidence suggests that the initial complaint was received by phone in February 2021. The resident contacted this Service on 25 June 2021 and stated the landlord had not responded to his complaint regarding the delays in repairing his heating and requested the landlord explain the reason for its delays and consider paying him compensation.  According to the landlord’s records it did not provide its initial complaint response until 12 April 2021, which was 15 days outside of its published timescale.  A copy of the letter has not been provided to this Service for review and the records outlining the complaint response are not comprehensive. Due to this, it is not clear as to whether each aspect of the resident’s complaint was addressed or if the landlord issued an apology or made the resident aware of the delay to its complaint response, which is likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident.
  4. The evidence indicates that the resident escalated his complaint on 30 April 2021. However, the landlord did not respond to the resident until 7 July 2021, after the Ombudsman requested it to issue a final response to the complaint. This was 48 days outside of its published timescale. In certain circumstances, there are occasions where it would be reasonable for a landlord to delay providing a complaint response. However, in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord should have kept the resident informed of any delays and managed the resident’s expectations accordingly, setting clear timescales in which the resident was likely to receive a response, rather than the resident having to chase the landlord. Therefore, because the landlord failed to comply by its obligations set out in its complaints policy, this does constitute a failure by the landlord.
  5. The landlord did not acknowledge its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, nor the inconvenience the resident may have experienced. In addition, the response did not set out any steps it had taken to resolve the issue. The Ombudsman would expect to have seen evidence of specific actions the landlord had taken to resolve the issue such as appointment dates for the repairs and findings and a conclusion on whether the correct process had been followed.
  6. Furthermore, the landlord’s compensation policy states that it does not provide compensation for distress or inconvenience, which is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.  By having this in the policy and stating it to the resident in its complaint response, the landlord has not properly engaged with the complaint as it has not allowed itself to offer compensation, which can be appropriate in some cases as a way of resolving complaints. This meant the resident has to refer the complaints the Ombudsman in order to receive compensation, when the landlord should be aware of the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation and should be seeking to follow our approach in an effort to resolve complaints without the need for our involvement.
  7. In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling in this case has been poor. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had adequately investigated the resident’s complaint. The landlord has not taken the opportunity of the formal complaints process to fully investigate the reports, formally confirm its position, and adequately address any identified service failings. The landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation in view of the errors in its complaint handling. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord its handling of the repair of the resident’s heating.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord is to pay the resident £550, comprised of:

a. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delayed repairs and its poor communication.

b. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.

28. The payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

29. It is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes to ensure that it has adequate records of repairs and communication with a resident.

30. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handling to ensure that the correct process is followed going forward.

31. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints policy with regards to compensation for distress and inconvenience to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.