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

Birmingham City Council (201909262)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909262

Birmingham City Council

22 December 2020

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 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 response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her sofa.
  • The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident’s tenancy at the property ended on 11 March 2018.  On 12 March 2018 the resident became the leaseholder of the property, which is a one-bedroom, ground floor flat in a low-rise block.
  2. According to the landlord’s repair records, on 28 March 2019 the resident reported that the drain in the front garden, underneath her kitchen window, was blocked and causing a leak in her property. This repair was marked as complete on 29 March.
  3. On 11 April 2019 a repair order was raised by the landlord because the wall by the resident’s living room window was wet. The repair was marked as complete on 30 April.
  4. A drain near the rear of the resident’s flat was reported to be blocked on 13 May 2019. The repair was marked as complete on 14 May.  However, on 15 May the resident reported that nobody had attended, and the landlord attended to unblock the drain on the same day.
  5. The following jobs were raised on 3 June 2019:

a)     Clean out the rear guttering as necessary. This was marked as complete on 4 June 2019.

b)     Camera survey the drain outside the property. This was marked as complete on 13 June 2019.

c)     Repoint the damp proof course around the front and side of the property and cement all holes to stop water ingress to the resident’s property. This was marked as complete on 15 August 2019.

  1. The resident completed the landlord’s ‘claim for compensation’ form, dated 17 August 2019. She listed her sofa as previously being in good condition “apart from the water damage caused through the DPC and window, which resulted in stained mould”. The resident said that the damage occurred on 21 March 2019 and attributed this to “the length of time taken for the landlord to identify the problem in a timely manner”. She referred to an “inspection which was carried out on 15 March 2019” after which she said she was told the drain needed unblocking, and the damp proof course needed repair. The resident said she had complained numerous times about water leaking into her living room and causing damage to internal walls and floors.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the compensation claim on 22 August 2019 and advised that it aimed to respond within 30 days. It said that the claim would be “recorded at stage two of …the Council’s complaints process.”
  3. A further repair order was raised, on 11 September 2019, for the landlord to remove slabs to the side and front of the resident’s property and replace with gravel for drainage.  A repair was also raised to remove bricks from the left and right side of the front living room window, conduct a camera survey, and check the cavity wall for debris above the damp proof course.
  4. On 16 September 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident about her compensation claim. It advised that there was no evidence of fault on its part because, following its inspection of the property, it believed the issues were caused by flash floods and bad weather at the time. The landlord explained that it was the resident’s responsibility to hold adequate home insurance and it would not pay compensation where there was no legal liability. It explained that the resident had a right of appeal against the decision, in writing within 21 days.
  5. The resident appealed against the landlord’s decision on 7 October 2019. She acknowledged that there had been bad rain during the first half of 2019, but said that the water entered the property each time it rained. She maintained that the damage to her sofa was a result of the landlord not raising the “right jobs” in a timely manner.
  6. The work to remove bricks from the sides of the front living room window, do a camera survey, and check the cavity wall for debris above the damp proof course was marked as complete on 10 October 2019. The gravel work was marked as complete on 16 October.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident’s compensation claim again on 13 November 2019. It advised that “the decision of the contractor remains the same and they are not prepared to offer any compensation for this claim.” It reiterated that it was the resident’s responsibility to have adequate insurance cover and, if she remained dissatisfied, she could pursue her complaint with this Service.
  8. A work job was raised on 26 November 2019 to repair the rainwater pipe/gutter to the rear of the block affecting the resident’s wall; this was marked as complete on 9 December 2019
  9. Following contact from this Service, the landlord explained on 19 December 2019 that the resident had not made a complaint. It confirmed that she had submitted a claim for compensation, and had exhausted that procedure.
  10. Following further contact between this Service and the resident, a complaint was raised with the landlord “regarding their handling of repairs for the water ingress to [the resident’s] property which damaged her sofa.”
  11. The landlord sent a complaint response to the resident on 24 January 2020. It explained that it could not confirm any inspection on 15 March 2019 (as the resident had said in her compensation claim form). It noted that there was a repair reported on 28 March 2019 regarding a blocked drain, and it attended the same day. A window repair reported on 11 April had been completed by 30 April. The landlord had no record of any previous complaints about repairs. It confirmed that repairs associated with drainage were reported in May, June, and August of 2019.  It said that the “complaint has been recorded as stage two of the complaints procedure” and that the resident could request a review of her complaint, if she remained dissatisfied, by calling the landlord.
  12. There was further correspondence between the landlord, resident, and this Service in April 2020. On 15 April the resident told us that she had received an email from the landlord that day with a compensation offer of £200. She said she was unhappy with the offer, and had told the landlord so.
  13. The resident asked the landlord, on 6 May 2020 for an update on her request for a review of the compensation offered. The landlord responded on 11 May and said it would increase its offer to £275. The resident remained unhappy.
  14. The landlord confirmed to this Service on 2 June 2020 that it would write to the resident with its final response to her complaint.
  15. On 8 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding her “claim for compensation and further telephone call”.  It advised that “the offer of £275.00, continues to be in full and final settlement of your claim and will not be increased.”
  16. On 24 June 2020 this Service asked the landlord if the response dated 8 June 2020 was its final response to the complaint. The landlord confirmed, on the same day, that it was.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the terms of the resident’s lease the landlord is required to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and of the building and the common parts of the building. Accordingly, where the resident has reported a leak, originating from the exterior of the property, the landlord should investigate the cause and undertake any required repairs within a reasonable timescale.
  2. As per the leaseholder handbook, all repairs that are not classed as emergencies or urgent are categorised as ‘non-urgent’. The repairs contractors aim to do these within 30 calendar days, but some larger and more complicated repairs may take longer.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord that repeated instances of water ingress into her home caused mould damage to her sofa. She claimed compensation from the landlord because she believed it had delayed in resolving the problem.
  4. The landlord’s repair records show reports of:

a)     Issues with water ingress into the residents home or communal areas on 4 December 2018 and 28 March 2019.

b)     A wet wall in the living room on 11 April.

c)     Work to “cement all holes to stop water ingress” on 3 June.

  1. The records also show work associated with maintenance of drainage, gutters, and pipes on several occasions through 2019 and 2020, but those records do not specifically refer to water inside the property.
  2. In her compensation claim form the resident said that mould damage to her sofa occurred on 21 March 2019. As mould damage would be gradual and usually over a lengthy period, it is not apparent what event on that specific date could be said to have caused the damage. In any case, while the repair records do refer to some form of water ingress in the property at the end of March and mid-April there is nothing in the records indicating significant problems of such a scale that would be needed to cause damage to belongings. There is no evidence of reports to the landlord of damp or mould in the property.
  3. A repair job was raised regarding water ingress on 11 April 2019. Based on the landlord’s repair records, the landlord attended on 30 April 2019. Thereafter further repairs were raised to clear out the guttering, survey the front gulley drain corner outside the property, repoint the damp proof course and carry out works to assist with drainage and repair the rainwater pipe/gutter. These repairs were carried out between June and December of 2019. These repairs indicate ongoing work by the landlord to address some form of issue with drainage or water flow, but they do not make any clear reference to actual water ingress or flooding into the resident’s home to any level which would be needed for damaged belongings to occur.
  4. The job to repoint the DPC around the front and side of the property and cement all holes took over two months to be completed.  For the roof repair, the scaffold was raised in five days. The other repairs were completed within 30 days, according to the landlord’s records, which was within the stated timeframes, including the extended timeframes for more complicated work.
  5. Based on the information provided, it is evident that the landlord completed several repairs at the property, relating to the drainage and damp-proof course. There is no indication that these were connected to the damage to the sofa, nor is there evidence of unreasonable delays by the landlord in attending to the repair work. The reasons for the landlord’s eventual decision to offer some level of compensation to the resident are not clear. Nonetheless, as no service failure has been identified, the landlord’s initial decision not to accept the resident’s claim for damaged belongings was reasonable.

Complaint handling

  1. Prior to making a formal complaint, the resident made a claim for compensation. In acknowledging the claim, the landlord said that the claim would be “recorded at stage two of …the Council’s complaints process.”  The resident appealed the landlord’s decision and, at the end of its further response to her claim on 13 November 2019, the landlord explained that if the resident was not satisfied with this response, she could pursue her complaint with the Housing Ombudsman Service
  2. In a call with this Service, on 3 January 2020, the resident advised that she wished to raise a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of water ingress to her property. This Service advised the landlord of the same, which advised that the matter had previously been looked at as a claim, but not a complaint. The landlord then responded to the complaint, in line with its complaints procedure on 24 January 2020.
  3. It is evident that the landlord appears to haveconfused matters between its damages claim process and its complaints process. This is shown where the landlord advised the resident that a complaint had been raised and referred her to this Service. The resident’s requests up to that point were clearly in relation to a damages compensation claim, and the landlord should not have described its handling as being part of the complaints process, or referred her to this Service at that stage.
  4. The landlord then created confusion by advising in December 2019 that no complaint had been considered from the resident. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her sofa.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation in acknowledgement of the service failure in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord completed several repairs at the property, relating to the drainage and damp-proof course. While the repair records do refer to some form of water ingress in the property at the end of March and mid-April there is nothing in the records indicating problems of such a scale that would cause damage to belongings.

The landlord confused matters in the handling of the complaint by not clearly differentiating the difference between its responses to the formal complaint and the compensation claim.