Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Birmingham City Council (202107400)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107400

Birmingham City Council

28 June 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. reports of a roof leak;
    2. request for a replacement door.
  2. The Ombudsman has also identified the landlord’s complaints handling as an area for investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been a secured resident at the property of the landlord since May 2010. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a bungalow with its own roof.
  2. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. The policy notes that complaints will be investigated fully, and ensure that residents receive “the best service” from the complaint procedure.
  3. The tenancy agreement notes that the landlord is responsible for keeping the exterior of the property in good repair.
  4. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy reiterates that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property, including the roof. The policy defines urgent repairs as those that pose a risk to health or the security of the property. These will be completed within one to seven days depending on the circumstances. Routine repairs will be completed within 30 days. The repair policy also notes that improvements will not be carried out except where there are special needs.
  5. The landlord uses a contractor for its roof repairs.

Summary of events

  1. It is not disputed that the resident has reported issues with his roof on a number of occasions prior to the reports that are the subject of the complaint. On each occasion, the landlord has attempted repairs to the roof.
  2. On 22 October 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint following the most recent repairs. The resident reported that the landlord’s contractor had advised him the roof was beyond repair and that a new roof was required. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same date.
  3. As part of its investigation, the landlord requested that its contractor provide comments on the resident’s complaint, including the concerns about the need for a new roof. The contractor advised that a number of repairs had been completed over the last few years, but that each repair had been for a different element of the roof, i.e. new ‘Durashield’ coating, resealing the flashing, and clearing debris. The contractor noted a further inspection had been booked for 30 October 2020 to determine if anything further was required. The contractor did not specifically comment on whether a new roof was required or not.
  4. This service has been provided with the landlord’s repair records which noted there had been five repairs to the roof in the year leading up to the complaint. The records do not give detailed specifics of the repairs carried out on each occasion.
  5. The landlord provided its stage one response on 27 October 2020. Within the body of the complaint response, it copied and pasted its contractor’s comments. It concluded by apologising for the inconvenience the repairs had caused and reiterated a further inspection was due to occur.
  6. On 15 December 2020, the resident reported that following the further inspection, the contractors had attended, but that he perceived that they only swept the roof and left. He also noted that an operative of the contractor had advised a new roof layer was required. The resident additionally noted that his existing door was only single–glazed and so requested that this be renewed with a double-glazed door. He subsequently requested that his complaint be escalated.
  7. As part of its investigation, the landlord again requested that its contractor provide comments on the resident’s concerns. The contractor disputed that it had only swept the roof and advised that they had also renewed the Durashield coating which should prevent any further leaks. They further advised that their roofing manager had assessed the works and was “more than happy with this repair.” They advised that the roofing manager was returning to the area on 21 December 2020 and that they would visit the resident to explain this.
  8. The landlord provided its stage two response on 18 December 2020. Once again, it copied and pasted the contractor’s comments into the body of the response. The landlord added that when something was considered repairable, it would endeavour to repair it instead of replacing it, which it had done in the instance of the roof. It advised that the resident should continue to report any further problems.
  9. Regarding the door, the landlord advised it could replace doors on a like for like basis, but that a double-glazed door would constitute an improvement, which it would not be able to authorise.
  10. On 21 December 2020, the contractor advised the landlord that it had attempted to visit the resident, but he was not at home at the time of the visit.
  11. The resident has reported that the roof leak remains an ongoing issue, and that he had further works carried out in or around mid-2021. The resident remains concerned that the repair works will not be sufficient to solve the problem and that a replacement of the roof is required.

Assessment and findings

Roof

  1. When receiving reports of a repair concern, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to carry out a reasonable inspection of the reports, and to then carry out any necessary repairs. In instances where specialist knowledge is required to assess an issue, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to use an expert assessor.
  2. The landlord uses a contractor to carry out its repair responsibilities, and it is evident that the contractor employs a specialist roofing manager to investigate and attend to roofing repairs.
  3. Following the resident’s reports of ongoing issues with his roof, the landlord appropriately consulted its contractor for their comments. The contractor explained that while there had been multiple repairs necessary to the roof, these repairs had been different in nature. The landlord’s repair records corroborate that there had been multiple repairs, with five repairs in the last year, however, the records only note the issue reported and not the subsequent repairs which were carried out.
  4. Where multiple similar repair issues are reported within a short time period, and a landlord’s contractor maintains there is no requirement for replacement, the Ombudsman considers it best practice to independently corroborate this position using either its own in-house surveyor, or a third-party surveyor. Given, however, that at this stage, the landlord’s contractor committed to a further inspection, it was reasonable for the landlord to await the outcome of this inspection before considering this step.
  5. The landlord’s stage one and two responses are discussed further below, however, within its stage one response, the landlord noted the contractor’s comments, including that a further inspection was to occur. Given that the resident had raised concerns about replacement of the roof, it would have been helpful had the landlord confirmed the exact intention of the further inspection and provided information about what action it might subsequently take. This omission alone, however, was not enough to amount to service failure and it was sufficient that it confirmed a further inspection would first take place.
  6. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy notes that the landlord will complete routine repairs within 30 days. The Ombudsman understands, however, that this timeline is indicative, and delays due to the requirement of specialist equipment, personnel, or access can be reasonable.
  7. It is not disputed that the landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection, and subsequently carried out further works on or around 15 December 2020. While this was beyond the 30 days in the landlord’s policy, the Ombudsman notes that scaffolding was required, and so this slight delay was reasonable.
  8. As part of his escalation request, the resident raised concerns that the roof had merely been swept and that no substantive works had been carried out. The landlord appropriately raised this concern with its contractor as part of its stage two investigation, who clarified this was not the case, and that a new waterproof coating had been added. The contractor also provided the landlord with photographic evidence of the works giving it the opportunity to independently assess them.
  9. Given that the resident reported that another operative of the contractor had advised that a part of the roof required replacement, the landlord also appropriately passed on the comments of its contractor’s roofing manager who was “more than happy with this repair.” As noted above, while it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its experts, where there a resident maintains an opposing position and where there have been multiple similar repair issues, the Ombudsman would consider it best practice to seek a second opinion to reassure the resident. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord was provided with photographic evidence of the works for it to assess, and so it was reasonable for it to come to the same conclusion as the contractor, however, as discussed further below, it could have done more to express this opinion in its formal response.
  10. The landlord appropriately justified its position that it would not replace the roof by explaining that where it considers an item repairable, it will opt to repair it instead of replacing it. The Ombudsman understands that landlords have an obligation to ensure funds and repair budgets are managed and used fairly and appropriately, and so this approach is considered reasonable. The landlord also appropriately committed to further inspections or repairs should they be required.
  11. While ultimately the landlord’s contractor was unable to meet with the resident, it was nevertheless an appropriate further step for the landlord to arrange for its contractor’s roofing manager to meet with the resident to fully explain the works they had carried out.
  12. In summary, following the reports of the resident, the landlord arranged for further inspections, and subsequently carried out repair works to the satisfaction of its roofing expert, which it was also able to independently assess using the photographic evidence provided to it. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on both the opinion of its expert and its own assessment, and it appropriately outlined its position to the resident regarding its obligation to repair items before replacing them.
  13. It is evident that the resident has experienced further issues with his roof and that he is still of opinion that the roof requires replacement. The Ombudsman notes that while it may have been appropriate to only carry out repairs at the time of the complaint, a significant amount of time has now passed, and the condition of the roof may now have changed. A recommendation has been made below that the landlord contact the resident to enquire as to whether there are any current repair issues, and to subsequently arrange an inspection if so. Given the number of previous issues, the landlord should also consider independently assessing the roof in addition to its contractor’s inspection.

Door

  1. It is not disputed that the landlord has a repair obligation in relation to the property, however, such an obligation does not necessarily extend to making improvements. While a landlord may periodically carry out improvement works to properties, as noted above, it has a responsibility to manage its funds responsibly, and in the absence of any express requirement, the Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to carry out ad-hoc improvements.
  2. Following the landlord’s stage one response, as part of his escalation request, the resident requested that his door be replaced due to the current door only having single glazing, which was causing greater heat loss and increased energy bills. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s complaints policy does not require it to respond to complaints at stage two that were not part of the initial complaint, however, it appropriately used its discretion in order to quickly address the resident’s concern.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy notes that it will not carry out improvements except where there is a special need. The policy does not include a metric for what constitutes a ‘special need’. While it is certainly true that a double-glazed door would provide greater insulation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there are any number of slight improvements that could be made to a property, and this alone would not constitute a special need. Additionally, it is not disputed that the existing door remained functional as a door.
  4. Given that the door remained functional, and no special need had been demonstrated, it was reasonable for the landlord to deny the request for a replacement upgraded door. The landlord also appropriately expanded on its position by explaining that even where a door required replacement due to damage, this would only be on a like for like basis, in the absence of any special need.

Complaints handling

  1. The Ombudsman considers a formal complaint response to be an opportunity for the landlord to thoroughly investigate a complaint, and provide a reasoned response based on that investigation. The response itself should aim to demonstrate to the resident that this had occurred.
  2. Following the initial complaint, and the escalation request, the landlord sought the comments of its contractor. It then copied and pasted those responses without any editing into the body of its formal responses, to which it then added a concluding paragraph.
  3. While this approach shows some investigation occurred, it falls short of demonstrating to the resident that the complaints handling staff fully considered the history and circumstances of the complaint and whether it had fully met its repair obligations, instead appearing to rely only on the statement of its contractor. There was also a missed opportunity to fully outline the history of the complaint in its own words, and more importantly, to demonstrate it had assessed the photographic evidence of the works provided by its contractor, as discussed above. This omission would have been frustrating for the resident as it would have appeared the landlord had taken the word of its contractor over his without any further investigation.
  4. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this approach to complaints handling falls below what a resident should expect and does not achieve the aim of providing “the best service” as set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. In the circumstances, the landlord’s complaint responses amount to service failure, for which £150 compensation is appropriate. A recommendation has also been made below for the landlord to carry out additional training for its complaints handling staff.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s:
    1. reports of a roof leak;
    2. request for a replacement door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

Roof

  1. The landlord appropriately arranged for further inspections following the resident’s reports, and subsequently carried out repair works to the satisfaction of its roofing expert. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its expert, and it appropriately outlined its position to the resident regarding its obligation to repair items before replacing them.

Door

  1. The landlord appropriately used its discretion to include this complaint in its stage two response, in which its explanation regarding improvements and its refusal of the resident’s request was reasonable.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s formal complaint responses failed to demonstrate to the resident that a detailed investigation of the complaint had taken place, and the standard of the response was below what the Ombudsman would expect.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £150 for the poor standard of its complaint response.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and enquire as to whether there are any current repair issues, and subsequently arrange an inspection if so. Given the number of previous issues, the landlord should also consider independently assessing the roof in addition to its contractor’s inspection.
  2. The Landlord to take steps to ensure that its complaints handling staff have up to date training. This should also include consideration of this Service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/aboutus/corporateinformation/policies/disputeresolution/guidance-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/.