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

Birmingham City Council (202011553)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011553

Birmingham City Council

5 November 2021


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 request for reimbursement of costs for repairs to the rear door at the property.
  2. The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, with a tenancy start date of 17 November 2014.
  2. The landlord has an implied responsibility, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the property. Caselaw confirms that landlords are required to resolve repair issues for which they are responsible within a reasonable timeframe. What is considered ‘reasonable’ in this respect is considered on a case–by–case basis. The landlord’s repairs policy lists target timescales for repair resolution depending on the classification of the repair issue, with emergency repairs to be responded to within two hours of the report, urgent repairs within 1-7 working days and routine repairs within 30 days. In all cases the timescale begins at the point that the issue is reported to the landlord. The repairs policy confirms the landlord responsibility to repair and maintain back entrance doors to a property.
  3. The landlord has provided its General Policy for Compensation Claims (‘the compensation claim policy’), relating to claims for ‘alleged personal loss or damage to property or belongings, personal injury and negligence’. This Service does not investigate insurance claims as the Ombudsman does not have the authority to make findings about negligence or liability, matters more appropriately handled by a court of law. The compensation claim policy has been referenced here however as it is evident that significant elements of the resident’s complaint relate to such a claim. It is noted that the compensation claim policy includes signposting towards the Ombudsman in the event that the resident is dissatisfied with an unsuccessful claim.
  4. The compensation claim policy clarifies that it relates to claims made of its Housing Service and that an award of compensation will only be made in cases where liability has been identified. The process for a resident to submit such a claim is outlined, with a claim form to be provided within 28 days of the incident. The policy also contains the standard template letters that go out to claimants as part of the compensation claim process; these templates include some of the formal complaint correspondence provided to the Ombudsman as part of this investigation.
  5. The landlord’s complaints process, at the time of the complaint provided for a three stage complaints process, with stage one relating to a complaint that can be resolved immediately. Stage two responses have a 15 working day response timescale and stage three a 20 working day response timescale.

Summary of events

  1. There was a break in through the rear door of the property on 8 November 2019, resulting in damage to the handle and locking mechanism to the door. The resident’s complaint to the landlord, dated 7 October 2020, said that she had requested reimbursement of repair costs when she contacted the landlord by phone during November 2019 and had been asked to provide evidence of repairs completed. She said that she did this on 28 November 2019, providing the police log number, photos of the damage and the receipt showing the costs of repairs. She also sent back the required claim form then did not receive a response. Following further phone calls, several months later, she had re-sent a new claim form via recorded delivery and again did not receive a response.
  2. The resident’s complaint went on to say it had been ten months since the issue occurred and that she had to self–fund the repairs to the door when she did not receive a response from the landlord. She requested reimbursement of these costs as a resolution to her complaint. On 8 October 2020, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would provide a response within 15 working days, this would be in accordance with the stage two timescale detailed in the landlord’s complaints process.
  3. There is evidence of two, and possibly three letters sent to the resident on 9 October 2020. The first and second relate to the resident’s compensation claim, with one stating that the front of the claim form ‘clearly states that all claims are responded to within 28 days’ and that it would have expected her to have made enquiries much sooner’ than she did. This letter also said that the resident could progress this issue with the Ombudsman.
  4. The second letter to the resident dated 9 October 2020, also related to a compensation claim. It said that it had no record of a compensation claim dating back to November/December 2019. It also said that it had looked at the repair records for the November 2019 period and that ‘with the details you provide the call operator should have taken the repairs details for a repair to be completed’, for which it apologised. It said, however, that it was unable to provide any financial assistance in this instance as there was no ‘legal liability for the loss or damage that you have suffered’.
  5. The third letter dated 9 October 2020 specifically related to the complaint that the resident had submitted on 7 October. It Is not certain if this letter was sent however as, in the main, it consisted of a template letter, with space left to add details and no relevant response to any of the issues outstanding.
  6. On 16 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging her request for her complaint to be reviewed, stating that it would respond by 10 November 2020. The Ombudsman has also been provided with a second letter that may or may not have been sent to the resident on that date, which confirmed that its complaint review had been completed, but offered no further details about the issues at hand. As with the third letter dated 9 October 2020 (above), this letter was incomplete.
  7. The landlord’s records include reference to a telephone call from the resident on 22 October 2020 in which she confirmed that, in her view, the landlord’s response to her complaint was ‘without merit’. The landlord responded via email, requesting more details so that it could respond.
  8. On 28 October 2020, the resident responded in writing to the landlord, expressing her disappointment with how her complaint had been handled. She said that she had complained following the landlord informing her that it had no record of her compensation claim and was disappointed to have then been informed that she should have contacted it sooner. She reiterated the timeline of events, as described in her 7 October complaint, and requested a ‘conscious, non-biased’ response. There is no evidence of the landlord having responded to this letter.
  9. Following a request from the Ombudsman for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint, it wrote to her on 12 January 2021. It said that it had no record of any reports about the rear door, only relating to internal doors, and that this response effectively amounted to its stage three response as she had previously complained. However, following further Ombudsman contact, the landlord wrote to the resident again, on 17 February 2021. It said that it had looked at its records again and identified that it had not received a complaint about the external doors previously, nor any reports in relation an external door in the previous 18 months. It confirmed that no repairs were outstanding and that any new repair issues would need to be reported to its contact centre. The landlord confirmed this as its stage two response.
  10. On 8 March 2021, the resident confirmed, during a call with this Service, that her complaint related to a break in and subsequent damage to her back door back in 2019. She said that she had reported this at the time but had received no response from the landlord and decided to pay for the repairs herself as the door was unsafe. She had then submitted a claim form for a refund of these monies but was informed by the landlord that it had not received this form. She tried to make a further claim (during lockdown) but again received no response. She had then made a formal complaint on 7 October 2020, but the landlord did not respond to this either.
  11. The resident sent information to this Service the following day (9 March 2021). This included:

a)     Resident timeline, confirming the break in on 8 November 2019.

b)     28 November 2019 – resident email report to the landlord about the recent break–in to the property. This email attached the Police Log Number, photos of the alleged damage and a receipt for the costs (totalling £140) dated 9 November 2019.

c)     3 December 2019 – landlord email confirming that the above email had been forwarded to ‘the relevant team’.

d)     5 December 2019 – landlord email to the resident requesting that she complete a compensation claim form.

  1. On 12 April 2021, the Ombudsman wrote to the resident, confirming that the landlord had been given 5 working days to respond to her through its complaint process. The landlord provided, on 20 April 2021, a copy of a letter it sent the resident in relation to a separate complaint (regarding damp and mould) and when the Ombudsman again asked the landlord to respond to the complaint under investigation, it responded (10 May 2021) to say that it had no record of the complaint. The Ombudsman provided evidence of the complaint to the landlord (14 May 2021) and again requested a response to be sent to her, within 10 days.
  2. The resident contacted the Ombudsman, on multiple occasions, expressing her concern that the landlord was being given additional time to respond to a complaint that she had submitted some time ago. The Ombudsman made a decision that the case should be brought within its formal remit, with the landlord having had sufficient opportunity to progress the case through its complaints process.
  3. The Ombudsman confirmed, on 6 July 2021, that the case had been accepted for formal investigation. As part of the information provided to this Service, the landlord has included its repair records for the property. There is no reference to a reported break in during November 2019 in these records, nor any reference to any repair issues to the rear door, either during November 2019 or thereafter.

Assessment and findings

The rear door.

  1. The landlord’s failure to provide a comprehensive response to the resident’s complaint has limited this Service’s ability to conduct a thorough investigation. In the absence of such information, this investigation has determined the case on the evidence available.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms the reporting responsibility of the resident and the standard response timescales. In this case, given that the issue related to a break-in to the rear door, with the property left unsafe from a security perspective, the landlord would have been required to attend within two hours to make the door safe. It is not clear from the evidence whether the resident reported this issue to the landlord immediately, or whether her reports occurred sometime after the event. The repairs that she arranged took place on 9 November 2019, a single day after the incident. Whilst her desire to ensure the security of the property was understandable, it is not clear whether the landlord was given the opportunity to enact its repair responsibilities.
  3. However, the landlord had the opportunity to respond to this issue through its complaints process. Whilst there are significant concerns about the landlord’s complaints handling (considered in more detail below), it is noted that the second letter sent to the resident on 9 October 2020 (paragraph 11) acknowledges that the staff member who took the resident’s call ought to have recorded the issue as a repair issue, but did not do so. The landlord’s apology here amounts to an acceptance of service failure in this respect. As such, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord has acknowledged that it did not handle the resident’s contact at the time of the original incident appropriately, resulting in her incurring the costs she has evidenced. As she has requested reimbursement of these costs as a resolution to her complaint, it is considered reasonable redress for the landlord to now pay her compensation to reflect this sum.

Complaints handling

  1. It is of significant concern that the landlord’s handling of the complaint was unclear throughout. There was clear conflation between its handling of the case from a compensation claim perspective, and its handling of the complaint. The two issues are separate, the wording of the compensation claim policy clearly identifies this as relating to liability issues, i.e. identifying whether the landlord is liable for costs incurred. Such issues are independent of a complaints process and it should be clear to both the landlord and a resident about which process is being followed. This matter has been confused further as the compensation claim policy requires signposting to the Ombudsman at its completion. This is inaccurate, the Ombudsman does not have the authority to make findings about liability issues and any reference to this Service in this policy should clearly identify the limitations of the Ombudsman’s role in considering complaints that have been through a landlord’s complaints process.
  2. It is of further concern that the Ombudsman experienced significant difficulties in its attempts to facilitate the complaint through the complaints process. The landlord was unable to identify the complaint, sent details of separate complaints and ultimately, failed to complete its complaint process, with the Ombudsman accepting the case in the absence of a final response. It is clear that the landlord’s poor handling of the complaint resulted in additional inconvenience for all parties. In the circumstances, a finding of maladministration is considered appropriate, together with an order of compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in the pursuit of her complaint. In addition, recommendations have been included for the landlord to review the signposting contained within its compensation claim policy and for it to consider training for staff in line with its self-assessment of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  3. In addition, it is noted that the landlord’s multiple record keeping failures have contributed to both its poor management of the case and the sense of confusion and frustration experienced by the resident’s in the pursuit of both the substantive issue and the complaint she submitted. The resident reported a number of phone calls which were not evidenced and at least two compensation claims that were not responded to; the landlord has provided two formal letters that appear to be incomplete (though it is also not clear if these were ever sent) and there was also confusion as to whether the landlord was progressing through a claim process or a complaints process.

 

 

 

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her rear door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord had the opportunity to provide its position regarding the rear door on multiple occasions. Its record keeping throughout was poor and this meant that it was not possible to get a clear picture of what occurred at the point of the original incident. However, a formal response sent to the resident acknowledged and apologised for a call operator’s failure to raise her reports as a repair issue at the time. Based upon this acknowledgement of failure and the landlord’s poor record keeping, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s overall response was inappropriate, with an order of compensation to reflect the costs the resident incurred in repairing the door a reasonable remedy to put the issue right.
  2. The landlord was unclear about whether the resident had submitted a complaint when the Ombudsman attempted to facilitate progression through the complaints process. There was also concerns about conflation between the landlord’s complaints process and its management of a compensation claim. In addition, it is evident that the landlord’s poor record keeping contributed to the overall failures identified.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £340, broken down as follows:

a)     £140 to reflect the costs the resident incurred in repairing her rear door.

b)     £200 for the service failures identified with its complaints handling.

  1. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order by 3 December 2021.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review the case, from a record keeping and complaints handling perspective, with appropriate training to be identified for complaints staff, taking into account the landlord’s self assessment of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The landlord to review its compensation claim policy to ensure that claimants are signposted appropriately at the end of the process.