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

Birmingham City Council (202012337)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012337

Birmingham City Council

15 July 2021


Our Approach

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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:

 

3.1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about water ingress into the bathroom at the property.

 

Background

 

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a one-bedroom bungalow. The tenancy start date was 2 October 2006. The resident is elderly and lives alone at the property.

 

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that the landlord is responsible for the repair of the structure (including the roof), as well as various components within the property. For the bathroom, that would include basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems, taps, shower, and waste pipes. The policy says it is the responsibility of the tenant to take reasonable steps to avoid moisture (condensation) building up in the property and causing damage.

 

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy also says that it will respond to urgent repairs within one, three or seven days, and routine repairs within 30 days.

 

Summary of Events

 

  1. On 4 February 2021, the resident called the landlord about a roof repair, but was advised it had been cancelled. The resident was unhappy about this, and said the repair still needed to take place. Later that day, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact as a formal complaint. It advised that it would provide its response within 15 working days.

 

  1. The landlord then looked into the matter and found that its contractor had attended the previous month and, even though it was raining at the time, reported that there were no leaks and so it cancelled the repair. On 5 February 2021, the landlord arranged for two roofing supervisors to visit the property, and they confirmed that the roof was not leaking.

 

  1. On 18 February 2021, the landlord provided a formal complaint response to the resident’s complaint. It said:

 

9.1.           He had reported a leak on 19 January 2021, and its contractor had attended on 27 January but could not find a leak.

 

9.2.           After the resident complained about this on 4 February 2021, the landlord called him on 7 February 2021 to explain that it did not think any repairs were needed.

 

  1. The resident responded on 10 March 2021. He said the repair job had been arranged for 14 January 2021 and, although scaffolding was put up, no one attended for the repair and the scaffolding was removed on 18 January 2021.

 

  1. The resident brought a complaint to this Service about the matter, and we asked the landlord to issue its final response. In the resident’s correspondence to this Service, he disputed whether any works had been completed to his roof at any point, stated that the landlord’s version of events did not accurately reflect what had actually taken place and also said that the condition of his bathroom was ‘very very bad’. In addition, the resident opined that the issue related to actions from a ‘previous landlord’. Having considered these comments in the context of the evidence available, the Ombudsman is satisfied that he is referring to the contractor appointed by the landlord to resolve any issues at the property, rather that any entity with whom a previous landlord/tenant relationship existed.

 

  1. On 7 April 2021, the landlord arranged for two of its contractors to again carry out an inspection, but they did not find any issues with the roof.

 

  1. On 8 April 2021, the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. It said:

 

13.1. Works were undertaken on 14 January 2021 where some adjustments to tiles were made. It said the repair notes indicated that the resident was not ventilating the bathroom, and that by not doing so, it thought he may be confusing condensation with a roof leak.

 

13.2. After the resident reported a further repair for the roof, its contractor attended again but could not find any water ingress to the property.

 

13.3. It pointed out that, since February 2021, there had been several periods of rain and snow, but no further roofing repairs reported, which it thought suggested there were no defects.

 

  1. The resident responded to the landlord to say that the repair job had been arranged since 2018 by the previous landlord. He said he had been to the police and reported the previous landlord, as well as a contractor, for not previously doing the repair.
  2. On 23 April 2021, during a discussion with this Service, the resident said that he remained dissatisfied as water continued to penetrate into his bathroom, impacting his health. As a resolution to his complaint, he requested that the landlord complete works to resolve the water ingress issues into his bathroom and to prevent the leak to the roof.

 

  1. On 11 May 2021, the resident’s Councillor contacted the landlord to say that she had seen many photos of damp over the years, but nothing like the photos the resident had shown her. She said the resident had advised her that he had always had problems with the roof, ever since moving into the property in 2006.

 

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s Councillor later that day. It confirmed that the property had been inspected, but that there was no roof leak and the water ingress issue was caused by condensation because the resident had not ventilated the bathroom.

 

  1. Internal landlord emails dated 12 May 2021 referred to previous works having been completed at the property to resolve the issues reported by the resident, with the issues having been caused by resident lifestyle. The email correspondence also referred to previous legal actions that had completed on these issues, as well as actions taken by the local Environmental Health (EH) team. No evidence was available of any previous legal action nor any inspections completed by the EH team.

 

  1. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the repairs log. This shows that the resident has complained about the roof leaking on numerous occasions since 2010. Since 2018, the resident has raised over 15 repair jobs for this. The landlord has arranged for inspections to take place, but has not found evidence of a leak.

 

Assessment and Findings

 

  1. It is evident that the water ingress issues to the bathroom at the property are long standing, with a history of reports from the resident about a roof leak, as well as concerns about mould growth within the bathroom itself. The internal landlord correspondence from May 2021 refers to previous legal action and actions from the local EH team on the issue, with the landlord stating that repair responsibilities had been resolved and that water ingress issues in the bathroom relate to condensation and tenant behaviour.
  2. It is not the Ombudsman’s role here to consider any previous actions on this issue, which have been referenced here only for context. In any case, the Ombudsman does not have the power to investigate issues that have progressed appropriately through formal court action. As such, this investigation is focussed solely on the complaint that progressed through the landlord’s complaints process, culminating in the final response dated 8 April 2021.
  3. In relation to this complaint, it is evident that the landlord had accepted its repair/maintenance responsibility for resolving any issues relating to the roof at the property. Scaffolding had been erected at the property and the stage two response confirmed that some works were completed whilst this scaffolding was erected (14 January 2021 – adjustment of tiling). Importantly, no leak issues were identified by the landlord’s operatives whilst the scaffolding was erected, nor when a further inspection was completed on 7 April 2021. Having identified no roof leak issues, it was appropriate that the landlord concluded that no further action was required to the roof.
  4. It is not disputed that there is an issue of water penetration within the bathroom however, irrespective of the roof leak issue. The landlord’s internal correspondence confirms that this is an ongoing issue which it has concluded relates to a lack of ventilation, resulting in condensation. The landlord’s role with such issues relates to providing what assistance it can to educate a tenant in how to resolve the issue themselves, through opening windows, use of extractor fans and heating etc. In addition, irrespective of whether or not the issue relates to tenant behaviour, a landlord retains an overall responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to ensure that its properties are free of category one hazards, including excessive mould growth.
  5. In the circumstances, it is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to confirm its position regarding the water ingress issues at the property, including the findings from previous inspections, a summary of advice/assistance it can provide as well as any actions it might be able to take (such as mould removal or installation of extractor fans). Whilst there is no requirement on the landlord to complete this action, providing the above to the resident (as well as any parties providing support to him), will provide clarity and reassurance about his position and his options for improving his standard of living at the property.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water ingress to the bathroom at the property.

 

Reasons

 

  1. The landlord erected scaffolding and carried out minor works to the roof at the property. Having found no evidence of a roof leak, it was appropriate that it carried out no further works. The landlord has referred to an ongoing condensation issue, relating to tenant behaviour, which has caused the excessive mould growth to the bathroom.

 

Recommendation

 

  1.  The landlord to write to the resident confirming its position in respect of the mould growth in the bathroom. To include a summary of previous inspections/actions, confirmation of what further assistance is available and whether or not further works can be completed to alleviate any issues, such as installing extractor fans or washing mould growth away using a fungicidal wash.