Birmingham City Council (202207224)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207224

Birmingham City Council

28 February 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:
1. response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
2. handling of a leak and follow on repairs in the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident’s complaint is about her request to be rehoused via the local authorities housing register. Paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which “concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing”. The local authority housing register is a function of the local authority that sits outside of its capacity as a landlord and therefore, falls outside of the jurisdiction of this Service. The resident is advised to approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since March 2015. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is a local authority. The landlord has said that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Policy and legal framework

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to installations in the property for the supply of water and heating.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for repairs to internal water pipes. It will respond to emergency repairs within 2 hours, complete urgent repairs in up to 7 working days and routine repairs within 30 days.
The landlord’s decant procedure says that when it is notified of a flood, event or repair it will arrange to inspect the property to determine whether it is safe for the resident to stay there.
The landlord’s comments, compliments, and complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint said that stage 1 complaints would be responded to within 15 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. The comments, compliments and complaints procedure at the time said that where it took longer to respond to complaints, it would write to the resident to give a reason for the delay and an updated deadline for when it would respond.

Summary of events

On 12 June 2022 the resident reported a water leak in the property. The landlord raised an emergency job, which was recorded as completed the same day. Eleven days later it noted that a subcontractor was on site carrying out a CCTV drainage survey.
On 8 July 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord and said nothing had happened since a plumber had attended and suggested the leak could be from the pipes. Her and her children’s health had been affected and they were walking around in wellington boots. There was mould in the property and the electrics were a risk. She should have been moved a long time ago and asked for compensation. The landlord acknowledged the complaint that day. The resident replied that a contractor had attended her property that day with no appointment and she had not been told about this. She asked for an appointment to be made so she could be available.
The resident complained to this Service on 18 July 2022 and the following day we sent a letter to the landlord asking it to respond to the complaint within 10 working days.
On 20 July 2022 the landlord’s contractor contacted the resident and arranged an appointment for the following day. The contractor attended as arranged and reported that the leak was ongoing but it could not find where it was coming from. It needed the water company to locate the external stop tap and turn this off before it could carry out further tests. The landlord contacted the water company the following day and it confirmed it had attended and done this.
On 25 July 2022 the resident reported that the contractor had not attended an appointment that day. The landlord raised this internally and the next morning the contractor arranged to attend that afternoon. The resident asked the landlord to attend the appointment as well to ensure progress was made. Later that day the resident updated that the contractor had attended and said the landlord needed to inspect the property and she did not understand why this had not already happened. She said the property was not fit to live in.
The landlord provided a ‘compensation claim form’ to the resident on 25 July 2022 and asked her to return this with photographs of the damage and receipts. The resident replied 2 days later and provided pictures of damaged items but it is not clear from the evidence provided whether the completed claim form was also submitted. The resident explained that it was submitted to the landlord.
On 3 August 2022 the resident told this Service that she had not received a response to her complaint and we sent a letter to the landlord chasing a response in 5 working days. The landlord confirmed on 10 August 2022 that its investigation was underway and it would issue a response as soon as possible. It said that the resident had been updated.
The landlord inspected the property on 8 August 2022 and found the leak was from a pipe in the airing cupboard. Its contractor attended to repair this and, in the process, another leak occurred. This was made safe and an appointment arranged the following day to repair this, which it said was completed. Another contractor attended to check the electrics and made safe a socket in the hallway.
The following day, the landlord reported via internal email that extensive follow on works were required and that it would make arrangements for excess water to be removed using a water vacuum. It said that the ground floor of the property was a hazard and recommended an immediate decant for the resident, to another property.
On 10 August 2022 the landlord raised a routine job to remove excess water from the lounge and hallway using a water vacuum. It recorded this as completed the following day and said that it also replaced some floor boards on that day.
On the same day the resident told the landlord that she did not want the carpets removed or any large scale follow on works done while she was at the property because of the impact on her health. She told it that she had been diagnosed with a specific health condition that was aggravated by mould spores. She would not consider a temporary decant as she had a pet and did not want a short term move because of this and was asking for a permanent move. Two days later the landlord advised that a temporary decant would not affect her application for a permanent move and encouraged her to accept this. The resident declined this.
On 18 August 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, which said:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding.
2. It was unsatisfactory that it had only recently identified the source of the leak and repaired this. It had incorrectly identified the cause of the leak as a burst underground pipe in June 2022, which had delayed this being repaired, while it decided where to dig to locate the leak. It acknowledged the impact of this on the resident.
3. It was reasonable that she deny access when she had work or other commitments, especially if she had no knowledge of the visit.
4. It had identified further follow on works required as a result of damage caused by the leak. She did not want to remain at the property and had declined its offer of a temporary decant and opted to complete a housing application to be rehoused permanently.
Four days later the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said it had only removed excess water from the hallway carpet and not the lounge, which was still damp. There was mould and the house smelt terrible. Its complaint response had implied the issues were resolved but this was not the case. The landlord acknowledged receipt of this on 29 September 2022. This Service and the resident’s MP chased the stage 2 response on 2 occasions in October and November 2022.
On 31 August 2022 the landlord raised a works order to carry out works set out in a “narrative report” that this Service has not seen. This order was recorded as cancelled.
The resident has told this Service that the council’s environmental health department inspected the property on 20 September 2022 but this Service has seen no formal record of this.
On 29 November 2022 the landlord notified the resident in writing about an appointment for 20 December 2022 for repair works to begin at the property. The resident told this Service that she did not receive this letter until early January 2023. She had gone away for the Christmas period because of the condition of the property and she would not allow the works to take place around her and her children.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 December 2022, which said:
1. It apologised for the late response.
2. It acknowledged that it had not removed excess water from the living room carpet as agreed on 10 August 2022. This was due to an oversight and incorrect feedback from its contractor. A later inspection had confirmed the carpet was dry in the hallway and living room.
3. It had inspected the property following its stage 1 response and prepared a schedule of works. Damp and mould were identified during the inspection but the resident had not given access for it to complete the repairs. It was aware that works were still outstanding and if she was willing to reconsider her position regarding the temporary decant, it could make arrangements to progress the repairs.
4. The resident had told it that her personal items had been damaged because of the leak. It had provided a ‘compensation claim form’ on 25 July 2022 but she had not returned this. It asked her to complete and return this for it to consider her claim.
The resident replied to the landlord on 15 December 2022 via her MP. She reported that the carpet in the living room was mouldy and that there was rotten wood and furniture. There was excessive mould and damp on the walls, as well as in the bedrooms and bathroom, and the whole house smelt. She had submitted compensation forms and supporting documentation but had no response. The landlord replied 5 days later via the MP, saying that it was possible the repairs could be done on a room by room basis to minimise disruption and the resident would need to confirm whether she was willing to allow this to take place. It was also willing to make further enquiries about a temporary decant if she was willing to reconsider this. It had not received her compensation claim form and asked that she resubmit this.
In March 2023 the landlord responded to a further complaint from the resident about her request for rehousing. As part of this response it said she had not given access for repairs to be carried out in August and December 2022. It had spoken to her and she had declined for the works to be booked in.
In April 2023 the landlord advised that it had assessed her claim for compensation and it was not liable for the damage, because it had done everything possible to complete the works to her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this Service that she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her compensation claim provided in April 2023. This response was provided 4 months after the final complaint response, meaning it was not considered or responded to as part of the landlord’s formal complaints process. For this reason, this issue falls outside of the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation and, therefore, no determination can be made in that regard. However, it is noted that there appear to be inconsistencies between the landlord’s responses to the compensation claim and the formal complaint, in terms of its position on the delayed repairs, particularly in respect of the leak. In light of this, and having regard to the findings of this investigation report, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to review its previous response to the compensation claim alongside its complaints responses and this report and provide a written update to the resident, confirming its position and explaining the reasons for any discrepancies. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she may wish to raise this via the landlord’s formal complaints process.

The resident has reported that this issue has negatively affected her and her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident or her children’s ill-health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her or her children’s health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
Between March 2022 and October 2022, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation under paragraph 49 of the Scheme, which allows us to conduct investigations beyond individual complaints to establish whether there is any evidence of a systemic failing within a landlord.
This investigation included the landlord’s handling of repairs and complaints. and it reviewed 14 cases brought to the Ombudsman during the period. It identified common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement. The report was published in January 2023 and can be viewed here Birmingham-Special-Report-FINAL-January-2023-1.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The events in this case took place over this period and some of the findings of the Ombudsman’s special report are relevant to this case and are referred to in this report. However, we have not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those already made to landlord in the Ombudsman’s special report.

Handling of a leak and follow on repairs in the property

The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted the following points of failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs and record keeping which are relevant in this case:
1. Residents had to make multiple attempts to get repairs resolved.
2. Once a repair had begun there was little checking of progress and resolution.
3. Poor records on the progress of repairs meaning the landlord had limited information about what needed doing.
4. The landlord’s contractors kept poor records of appointments or attended without an appointment.
The leak reported in June 2022 was the landlord’s responsibility as per the tenancy agreement and so when the resident first reported this, it raised an emergency works order. It attended the same day, which was appropriate and in line with its committed response time in its repairs policy, as detailed above. From the records provided, it is not clear what action it took during that initial visit so the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether this was reasonable. The landlord’s repair records do not include any notes to confirm the outcome of its actions, which would be helpful. This information would allow staff to have full oversight of what had been done for consistency and to inform future decision making. This information is also important to allow the landlord to account for its actions to residents and this Service, if necessary.
As the landlord was unable to identify the cause of the leak at the initial visit, it carried out a drainage survey, which was sensible. Other than this, there is no record that it took any other actions to investigate the leak in that first month. It was only after the resident complained the following month, that the records show the landlord began chasing staff and contractors for updates to ensure progress was made. This was unfair as the resident should not have had to make a complaint for progress to be made. It took the landlord around 2 months to identify and repair the leak, which is over its committed response times, set out in its repairs policy, as detailed above. This amounts to maladministration and would have been upsetting for the resident due to the condition of the property and having water throughout the ground floor area.
The resident set out her concerns about the condition of the property in her initial complaint in July 2022. In response to this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to inspect the property to consider whether a decant was required. In addition to this, the resident asked the landlord to inspect the property on at least 2 occasions in July 2022; however, it did not do this. It was not until the following month and in response to its contractor’s request for it to inspect the property, that it did this. This delay amounts to maladministration and an order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on its decant procedure. Once the landlord had identified that a temporary decant was needed, it quickly raised this internally and confirmed this to the resident, in line with its decant procedure.
The landlord’s investigation into the cause of the leak was delayed because of access issues. The records provided show that it attended without having made an appointment on 8 July 2022. It is unreasonable of landlord’s to expect resident’s to give access without having been told about the appointment. The landlord confirmed this position within its stage 1 response. When another appointment was made later that month, it failed to attend without telling the resident. This meant that she took additional time and trouble to follow up with the landlord to get the appointment rebooked for the following day. These issues were frustrating for the resident and resulted in her wasting her annual leave from work to wait in for an appointment that did not go ahead.
Once the leak was repaired, the landlord sensibly arranged a job to remove excess water from the carpets. While this was raised as a routine repair, the job was completed quickly, which was appropriate considering the nature of the job and the previous delays. There was an oversight in the job completed as one of the areas was not done, which would have been frustrating for the resident. She raised this as part of her stage 2 complaint escalation in August 2022 and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to revisit to address this. However, there is no record that the landlord took any action to address this until its final response in December 2022, some 4 months later, when it acknowledged the oversight.
The landlord provided the resident with a compensation claim form in relation to damage to her personal items, which was appropriate. The resident said that she returned this with evidence. The landlord’s response to the resident’s compensation claim provided on 6 April 2023 falls outside of the scope of this investigation for the reasons set out above.
The landlord’s records in relation to the follow on works are vague and unclear. It appears that further inspections were carried out after the one in early August 2022, where works were identified, but this Service has seen no record of these. The landlord has said the resident refused access for works to go ahead in August 2022 but it is not clear what appointment this relates to, or how this was arranged. While a works order was raised in August 2022, this was recorded as cancelled, with no explanation as to why. Without full details of what the landlord did and why, this Service is unable to fully assess whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable. An order has been made below for the landlord to implement a process for formally recording inspections and provide staff training on this and the importance of keeping detailed records.
The resident declined a temporary decant because of the impact on a family pet. The landlord was not obligated to provide any support or assistance in respect of arrangements for the animal during the decant period. However, it would have been helpful for it to consider whether it could provide any help and support in relation to this. An order has been made below for the landlord to review whether it can help the resident with arrangements for her pet during a temporary decant period and provide a written update to her.
The resident told the landlord she did not want the follow on works to go ahead while she was living in the property and asked to be moved permanently. When the landlord declined her housing application in early November 2022, it was appropriate that it made further attempts to carry out the repairs. An appointment was scheduled for December 2022 and a letter sent to the resident; however, there is no record of any other contact with her to discuss this, or get her agreement for the works to go ahead, which would have been appropriate.
The records show that the landlord has tried to encourage the resident to agree a way for the follow on works to go ahead despite her having declined these, which was appropriate. The ongoing delay to the follow on works is outside of the landlord’s control. The condition of the property sounds concerning and is having a detrimental impact on the resident and her children. While this Service notes that the resident believes a permanent move is the best solution to this issue, this may not happen for some time, if at all, and she is encouraged to work with the landlord to agree a way for the follow on works to go ahead. An order has been made below for the landlord to meet with the resident to discuss the options of how the follow on works could be completed and confirm the details of this discussion in writing.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak and follow on repairs in the property. While it took action to investigate the cause of the leak, it should have done more to identify and repair this sooner. This delay meant that the resident and her children were left living in a property with water throughout the ground floor for around 2 months. This would have been very distressing, particularly, as she had told the landlord this was negatively affecting their health. The Ombudsman has been unable to fully assess the landlord’s handling of the follow on works due to the incomplete records, which is a concern. The landlord is not responsible for the ongoing delay to the follow on works; however, it could have done more to communicate with the resident prior to an appointment in December 2022, with the aim of getting these works completed.
The landlord acknowledged as part of the complaint process that it took too long to identify and repair the leak. It also acknowledged the impact this had on the resident; however, it failed to apologise or consider whether any other redress was required for the resident in order to put things right. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its handling of the leak and pay her £800 compensation.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted the following common points of failure in the landlord’s handling of complaints which are relevant in this case:
1. Delayed complaint responses.
2. Incomplete and inaccurate responses.
3. Missed opportunities to put things right at an early stage.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 30 days and the stage 2 in 111 days. These were both over its committed response times set out in its complaints policy, as detailed above. It is noted that this was a complex matter, which may have needed a longer time to respond. However, there is no record that the landlord provided any updates to the resident to explain this or provide a timeframe for the responses to be provided; which was promised in its complaints policy, as detailed above. The lack of updates resulted in the resident taking additional time and trouble to chase the landlord via this Service and her MP. This amounts to maladministration and would have resulted in the resident feeling ignored and as though it did not take her concerns seriously.
The complaint responses were not clear on the outcome of the investigations. While they admitted service failure, they did not say whether the complaint had been upheld or not. Both responses apologised for the delayed response but did not provide any redress for the admitted service failure or identify any learning as a result of the complaint. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident and would have left her feeling let down. Orders have been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation and review the complaint to identify any learning and provide a written update to the resident on the outcome of the review.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak and follow on works in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There was an avoidable delay in the landlord identifying and repairing the leak. It was only after the resident made a complaint that the landlord chased this up to ensure progress was made. It delayed in carrying out its own inspection, despite the resident asking for this and a failure to arrange access and missed appointments contributed to the overall delay. The leak went on for around 2 months and during this time the resident and her children were left with water throughout the ground floor of the property. This was distressing for them and she told the landlord this negatively affected their health. Once the leak was repaired, follow on works were declined by the resident. While the landlord is not responsible for the ongoing delay, it could have done more to communicate with the resident and consider whether it could help with arrangements for her pet during a temporary decant period.
The landlord’s complaint handling was delayed by over 100 days with no explanation or update given to the resident. This resulted in her taking time and trouble to chase responses via this Service and her MP. The landlord’s responses did not provide an outcome, offer redress or identify learning, which meant it missed the opportunity to put things right for the resident and left her feeling let down.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review whether it can help the resident with arrangements for her pet during a temporary decant period and provide a written update to her.
2. Meet with the resident to discuss the options of how the follow on works could be completed and confirm the details of this discussion in writing.
3. Apologise to the resident for its handling of the leak in the property.
4. Pay the resident £1100 compensation, made up of:
  1. £800 for its handling of the leak and follow on repairs in the property.
  2. £300 for its complaint handling.
5. Review the resident’s complaint to identify any learning as a result of this and provide a written update to her with the outcome of the review.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Implement a process for formally recording repair inspections.
2. Provide staff training on:
  1. its decant procedure.
  2. record keeping arrangements for repair inspections and the importance of keeping detailed records with reference to the Ombudsman’s report on knowledge and information management, which can be found here KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 6 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its previous response to the compensation claim alongside its complaints responses and this report and provide a written update to the resident, confirming its position and explaining the reasons for any discrepancies.
The landlord to notify this Service of its intentions regarding the above recommendation within 4 weeks.