Birmingham City Council (202312120)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312120

Birmingham City Council

23 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of plastering works in the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a council, and his tenancy started in 2017. The property is a first floor flat.
The landlord raised a job to repair cracks in the plasterwork of the living room and hallway on 1 February 2023 after the resident reported the walls and ceiling were in an unacceptable condition. He said old wallpaper from a previous resident had been used to cover the ceiling plasterwork, plaster needed to be sanded, and a hole needed to be filled where a light fitting had been. The landlord said the repair may take more than 2 visits and booked the first visit, for an initial inspection, on 6 March 2023.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 6 March 2023 and noted the resident wanted the whole hallway skimmed, which required supervisor approval. It explained to him that small holes and cracks were cosmetic work, which were his responsibility as per the repairs policy.
On either 7 or 8 March 2023, the supervisor called the resident and said he intended to inspect the property that day. The resident declined the offer, as he had not been given prior notice and was at work, so asked for the inspection to be rescheduled. The landlord notes said the resident would re-report the issue and re-book when he was available.
It is not clear whether the supervisor tried to attend on 10 March 2023 or 15 March 2023, or both, but the resident called the landlord on 13 March 2023 in relation to other repairs and was told the supervisor inspection had been rescheduled for between 8am and 1pm on 15 March 2023, but he had not been informed.
The resident was at work on 15 March 2023, but his partner was home. She said the supervisor “did not come as scheduled”, but there is no evidence to confirm what time he arrived. The supervisor’s notes from the visit said he would not return, as the resident’s partner said she did not want him in the property as he arrived at the wrong time. Further, the resident wanted the walls skimmed which was aesthetic work, and the contractor was only booked for patch repairs.
Contractor notes sent to the landlord on 16 March 2023 said photos taken on the first visit showed there was no patch work to do and it was clearly surface work, so it would not carry out the work. It said the resident was responsible to repair, renew or replace damage to internal plasterwork.
The resident raised a complaint in an email of 19 March 2023, in which he said:
1. He had requested callbacks which had not been received.
2. The work to the walls in the hallway and living room remained unfinished.
3. He wanted the supervisor to attend and complete an inspection as initially agreed.
4. He was concerned the contractor had not given truthful, clear accounts of events.
In the landlord’s email of 21 March 2023, it said the resident could raise a formal complaint by telephone or online if he was unhappy.
The resident called the landlord on 13 April 2023 and said he was told the plastering jobs had been cancelled.
The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 26 April 2023. It apologised for the delayed response and said a job had been raised for an inspection, which it would chase up and find out what had happened and the reasons for the poor communication. It emailed its contractor the same day and asked for its account of the visit on 15 March 2023, and whether it could send the photos that showed the plasterwork was the resident’s responsibility. The contractor replied and said it had left a voicemail for the resident on 21 April 2023 which said a supervisor would attend on 27 April 2023 to carry out a structural survey and inspect any other outstanding repairs. If this appointment was not convenient, it could reschedule.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 April 2023, in which it said:
1. Its contractor attended on 10 March 2023 to inspect the plasterwork, but the resident wanted the walls skimmed which he did not have authority to sign off.
2. A supervisor attended on 15 March 2023 but was refused access. Had they been able to complete the inspection, it would have progressed the request.
3. Another repair had been raised for the same job which said the work was the residents responsibility, and it apologised for the communication issue.
4. It acknowledged that missed appointments had caused inconvenience and exacerbated his frustration.
5. Its supervisor would re-attend on 27 April 2023.
The resident responded the same day. He said:
1. The first operative said he would contact him by phone to follow up and find his availability, but this did not happen.
2. He disputed the supervisor’s version of events on 15 March 2023 that he was “refused access”, because the resident and his partner were at work and unaware he planned to attend.
3. After he waited for an update, he contacted the landlord on 13 April 2023 and was told 2 plastering jobs had been closed.
4. The supervisor had attended that day, and in light of the inconvenience he had faced since the initial call on 1 February 2023, he wanted the plasterwork to be completed by 31 May 2023 and the complaint escalated.
On 28 April 2023, the supervisor emailed the landlord and confirmed he had attended the property the previous day. He said there were no structural defects and he had booked repairs for 11 May 2023 to skim the living room ceiling and repair plasterwork in the hallway. He said the resident was in the process of decorating, and believed the resident thought it was the landlord’s responsibility to fill small cosmetic holes and complete preparation work before he decorated.
An internal landlord email of 11 May 2023 said its contractor attended that day, but the resident had not received notification of the appointment and had not emptied the property, so it had been unable to complete the work.
The landlord emailed the resident a second stage 1 response on 22 May 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience, and said the appointment had been booked to assess the work that was required and the contractor would be in touch to arrange a date. The resident replied and said he had already received a stage 1 response, the contractor had arrived but could not complete the work as the areas were not clear of contents, and the work required 2 operatives not 1. He said he wanted the ceiling and walls of the hallway and living room skimmed and plastered. The landlord emailed, apologised for its mistake, and said 2 complaint references had been set up in error.
The resident chased for an update on 1 June 2023, saying there had been no progress or call back from the contractors to reschedule.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 4 June 2023 in which it said:
1. Its contractor said the resident said he would report the requirement for the repair when he knew his availability, and there had been a breakdown in communication, but it could not conclusively state its contractor was responsible.
2. The operative that attended on the 6 March 2023 said the resident wanted the whole hallway replastered, which it could not agree to, as the work would be the resident’s responsibility.
3. There were no records an appointment had been arranged for 7 March 2023.
4. There was no evidence its contractor made him aware of the appointment on 10 March 2023, and it apologised for the inconvenience that caused.
5. Its contractor closed the initial jobs to repair the plaster, but it had not provided evidence it updated the resident to make him aware. It apologised for the poor communication.
6. It apologised for the error after it sent a second stage 1 complaint response.
7. The work had been rearranged for 22 June 2023, and it had asked its contractor to contact the resident to confirm this date was suitable.
8. How to contact this Service if he remained unsatisfied with the response.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident responded by email on 8 June 2023. He said:
1. The supervisor called on 7 March 2023 but no one was home to allow access after he had not received any notification of the appointment.
2. He felt the contractor had tried to place the blame on him for its own failings.
3. He had not been advised he needed to report the repair again once he knew his availability.
4. The supervisor arranged to attend on 15 March 2023, but did not let him know, and it was only after he chased in relation to another repair he was made aware of this appointment. His partner had missed half a day out of her work schedule waiting for the supervisor to attend on 15 March 2023, but he failed to arrive [on time] which caused inconvenience.
5. Irrespective of the outcome of the rescheduled appointment on 22 June 2023, he would escalate the complaint to this Service.
The landlord’s notes said it attended and completed the ceiling repairs on 22 June 2023. The resident contacted this Service on 4 July 2023 and said he would like to receive compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman acknowledges there were additional repairs relating to the kitchen ongoing around the same time, but this investigation is focused solely on the issues raised in the formal complaint, being repairs to the plasterwork.

The landlord’s handling of plastering works

The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for the maintenance of walls and ceilings, but residents are responsible for minor plastering repairs. The policy says routine repairs are targeted to be completed within 30 days of being reported, but some larger repairs may need special materials and arrangements to be completed. If an inspection is required, the appointment shall be given at the time of the report.
Upon receiving the resident’s reports that the plasterwork was in poor condition, it was reasonable for the landlord to attend and complete an inspection. Whilst it booked the inspection at the time of the report, it did not take place until 33 days later, 3 days longer than its policy says it takes to complete repairs. There is no evidence to confirm why it took so long, or whether the resident was offered an appointment at an earlier date, but 33 days to carry out an inspection was unreasonable, and represents a failing.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord has no responsibility to improve existing internal plasterwork, and the resident is responsible for repairing surface damage. It was therefore reasonable for the operative to explain the repairs policy, and arrange for a supervisor to assess the condition of the plaster to decide any further action it would take.
The tenancy agreement says the resident must allow access to the property for inspection and repairs at any time between 8am and 7pm. It says the landlord will give advance notice of appointments “whenever possible”. It is not in dispute the supervisor tried to attend, but it is not clear whether this was on both 7 and 8 March 2023, or just 8 March 2023, or 10 and 15 March 2023 or just one of the days. The evidence shows the supervisor provided notice and tried to attend promptly after the first operative, which was appropriate, given it was more than a month after the repairs were reported.
However, it is not clear what happened with the appointment on 15 March 2023. The resident said, although his partner was in, the supervisor arrived at the wrong time, and the notes from the supervisor suggest the resident’s partner said she did not want him in the property and to “forget” the inspection. The supervisor then said he would not visit again as it had attempted to attend twice. This does not seem wholly fair, as it had not given the resident’s sufficient notice.
The evidence shows a theme of poor communication between the parties, indicating that the resident would re-book the inspection when he was available, but he disputed this account. Regardless of how the call was ended, the landlord should have clarified the position with him, rather than leaving the onus on him, and followed up to ensure the inspection was booked. The supervisor inspection was ultimately re-scheduled for 15 March 2023, but there is no evidence the resident was told this, which was a failing, and it was only a call to the landlord in relation to another repair that made him aware.
Further example of poor communication were after the contractor was unable to complete the second inspection, it decided it would not undertake the work and closed the job, but the resident was not told. Further to this, the job was re-raised on 28 April 2023 and booked for 11 May 2023, but again the resident was not told of the appointment. This meant when the contractor attended, it was unable to complete the work.
The repairs to the plasterwork were completed on 22 June 2023, 141 days (97 working days) after they were reported. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the repair, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. Residents are expected to use reasonable efforts to pursue repairs and maintain ownership where they consider there to be undue delays. The resident has said he had chased multiple times and requested callbacks which he did not receive, although there is no evidence of this.
Whilst the resident could have called in the 12 days following the supervisor inspection, the landlord should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it to the resident to continually chase for updates, which was a failing. The lack of communication caused the resident considerable inconvenience and contributed to the delay in the work being completed.
Given the landlord’s failure to meet its obligations to carry out repairs in a timely manner, poor communication, and no offer of compensation for its identified failings, a finding of maladministration is made. The landlord’s Compensation Policy does not set out guidelines for what amount it will consider for failures, but this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. Having considered the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, our guidance on remedies and the landlord’s Compensation Policy, an amount of £250 compensation is considered appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the plasterwork repairs.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, and it has a 3 stage complaint procedure. It will firstly aim to resolve the issue on the spot (stage 1), but if that is not possible it will investigate the complaint and respond within 15 working days (stage 2). If the resident remains unhappy, it will review the complaint and provide a response within 20 working days (stage 3). It says the “best way” for residents to complaint is by completing the online form, or by phone if the resident prefers.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlord’s must make it easy for resident’s to complain by providing different channels such as in person, over the phone, in writing, by email and digitally. It also says landlords must ensure any efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 March 2023 with the subject title “plastering formal complaint”. The landlord replied 2 days later and said if he wished to log a formal complaint, he could call or do so online. There is no evidence the resident followed this advice but, in light of the provisions in the Code, the landlord’s request was not a reasonable one. It was clear the resident wanted to complain, and the landlord should have treated the complaint as if it had been received over the phone or via its online form.
It is not clear whether the resident made any further attempts to log his complaint in the following weeks, but it was not acknowledged until 26 April 2023, 26 working days after his original email. Whilst he could have called to chase up the complaint, the landlord appears to have created an unnecessary delay for the resident in his attempt to raise the complaint.
It is not clear exactly why 2 stage 1 responses were issued, but the fact it sent a second stage 1 response on 22 May 2023 demonstrated a lack of care and due diligence in its overall handling of the complaint.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 27 April 2023, which the landlord promptly acknowledged the next day. It sent its response on 4 June 2023, 23 working days later. Its response acknowledged some failings including poor communication from its contractor, but failed to take any responsibility for its part in the delays. Therefore, while the landlord did acknowledge some failings and made some attempt to put things right (in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles), it failed to fully address the detriment to the resident and no offer of compensation was made, which was not proportionate to the failings identified.
As a result, there was maladministration and further actions is needed to resolve this complaint satisfactorily. Based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to him in pursuing the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of plastering works in the resident’s property.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £400 made up of:
  1. £250 for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the plastering works in the resident’s property.
  2. £150 for its ineffective complaint handling.
3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendation

Consider the learning from this case, and comply with existing obligations to ensure that its complaint handling practices fully align with the principles of the updated statutory Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code published 1 April 2024.