The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Birmingham City Council (202216687)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216687

Birmingham City Council

23 January 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 reports of outstanding repairs to her flooring.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom house. She resides at the property with her 3 children. The children have asthma.
  2. On 25 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about mould growth in the bathroom and on the concrete floor in the downstairs hallway. She also advised the concrete floor was crumbling. The landlord attended the property on 16 June 2022 and treated mould around the bath. It told the resident she would need to call in relation to the floor repairs.
  3. The landlord advised that it tried to attend a second time on 16 June 2022 to inspect the flooring but there was no access. On 21 June 2022, the landlord stated that the resident would need to lift the flooring before it could be inspected.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 29 July 2022. She advised that the floor was crumbling and had red and black mould. She stated that she had put down her own flooring on 15 June 2022. She was concerned about removing the flooring due to the risk to her children. She also advised that an operative did attempt to attend but this had not been at an agreed time.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 August 2022. It apologised for the delay in its response. It advised that as the resident had put down her own flooring, she would need to remove this first. The landlord advised it would only carry out works to original council structures and items that had not been altered. It advised it would carry out the repair once the flooring had been removed.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 30 September 2022. She advised that the response was not realistic. She stated that the landlord did not provide any floor coverings, and that she was told to cover the floor while awaiting an inspection. She stated that when the contractor attended to inspect the floor, she was asked to remove the flooring. She did not do this, as she was informed the repair would not be carried out the same day. She was concerned that leaving the floor uncovered would expose her children to mould.
  7. The landlord responded to the stage 2 on 9 February 2023. It reiterated that the resident would need to lift the flooring for the inspection. It also stated that she should cover the area in the period between the inspection and repairs, as it could not be repaired the same day. It suggested that the resident purchase dust sheets while the works were ongoing. Alternatively, the landlord said the resident could sign a disclaimer that any damage to the flooring was not the responsibility of the landlord.
  8. The resident’s floor repairs remain outstanding. She remains concerned that lifting the floor will expose the children to mould. She is also concerned about who is responsible for the cost of replacing the floor covering. The resident would like a resolution so that the floor can be repaired.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. A significant factor that has influenced progress in this case appears to be the resident and landlord disagreement over any damage that may happen in the process of lifting the lino flooring. The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation is limited to what has happened, and not what may happen subject to a future sequence of events. The Housing Ombudsman is therefore unable to determine liability, and this point may need to be considered by insurance or the court. However, the Ombudsman would encourage both parties to engage in a resolution and to ensure that the repair is the priority in this case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to her flooring.

  1. The resident states she was told to cover the floor while awaiting the inspection. The Housing Ombudsman contacted the landlord to request evidence from when the issue was reported. We asked what information was given to the resident at the time. The landlord stated it did not ask the resident to cover her floor as this would not facilitate the repair. The landlord has not provided any evidence of the interaction that took place when the resident first reported the issue. The Ombudsman cannot confirm whether the landlord did or did not ask the resident to cover the floor.
  2. When the damp and mould was reported, the landlord should have given advice to the resident, especially as mould is a risk factor. Although we cannot establish what happened in the discussion between the resident and the landlord, it would be unreasonable to leave the mould untreated. The landlord had an opportunity to discuss with the resident how she could keep the property safe while the inspection was outstanding. The landlord also should have advised the resident of any consequences of covering floors. This would include that it may prevent a repair, and that the flooring may become damaged if placed over mould. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord took this action.
  3. The landlord was correct in saying that the floor coverings would usually be the resident’s responsibility. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommends that landlord’s take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to visually inspect the hazard or repair it due to a dispute on who is responsible for the floor covering. Identifying and repairing the hazard should take priority over a dispute on flooring.
  4. The landlord should have inspected the mould and floor damage when it was reported. It is unclear why the landlord did not inspect the flooring on the first appointment on 16 June 2022, as the repair had been raised for this purpose. It advised there was no access to inspect the flooring on the second appointment of that day. The landlord raised an emergency job on 3 October 2022 but there was no access. Further appointments were attempted on 13 October 2022, 16 December 2022, and 13 January 2023. The resident should have provided access to repairs appointments. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of communication from the landlord to advise the resident it would be attending on these days. It is also unclear what the landlord was intending to do at these appointments, given its stance on not inspecting the floor until any flooring had been lifted. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to inform the resident of these appointments and confirm what the appointments were for.
  5. The resident repeatedly raised concerns about the risk to her asthmatic children’s health. She had concerns regarding the length of exposure to the mould if the floor were to be uncovered. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that this concern was reasonable. It suggested a dust sheet could be placed on the flooring at the residents own expense. The landlord should have taken ownership of any possible risk while repairs were outstanding. It should have completed a risk assessment and considered how to mitigate any risk to the resident. It should have communicated this to the resident. There is no evidence the landlord took this action. This has resulted in the resident not wanted to lift her flooring as she felt it was unsafe.as
  6. The landlord does not appear to have conducted a visual inspection on the floor. It acknowledged that the repair was urgent but has taken no action due to the dispute on who is liable for the flooring. The repair has remained uninspected and unrepaired for 2 years. It is reasonable to expect that the floor condition has deteriorated during this time and that the mould will have worsened. Although lifting the lino was the responsibility of the resident, the landlord made no attempts to reassure the resident regarding risk, while the repair was outstanding. It also had a responsibility to inspect and repair the property, regardless of flooring, due to the potential hazard. The Housing Ombudsman considers there to be maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to her flooring.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. The landlord took 22 working days to respond to the complaint. The landlord did not meet the timeframes given in its complaint policy, although the delay was not excessive.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It took 91 working days which is significantly outside of the timeframes given. The landlord apologised for the delay but provided no explanation as to why it happened.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy does not have any guidance on compensation for delays in complaint handling. However, it is the opinion of the Ombudsman that where the landlord has failed significantly to comply with its own process, it should consider a compensation payment. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of being fair, learning from outcomes and putting things right.
  4. Due to the delay at stage 2, the Housing Ombudsman considers there to be maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to her flooring.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay £400 in compensation. This is £300 for the delay in inspecting the floor and £100 for the delay at stage 2 of the complaints process.
  2. The landlord is to provide the resident with a written apology for the delay in resolving the repair.
  3. The landlord is ordered to complete a visual inspection of the damage to the floor. It is ordered to provide the resident with a schedule of works to address any repairs. Within this there should be a risk assessment and details of actions the landlord will take to ensure the resident is kept safe.
  4. The landlord is to provide evidence to the Housing Ombudsman of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.