Birmingham City Council (202107520)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107520

Birmingham City Council

4 December 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

The complaint refers to:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to the external doors of the property, the wooden external panels and her concerns about pests in the property.
2. The resident’s further concerns related to new repair issues, including a leak into her shower room and loss of heating and hot water.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we 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 the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The resident’s further concerns related to new repair issues, including a leak into her shower room and loss of heating and hot water.

Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
In her communication with this Service, the resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs needed following a leak into her shower room and her concerns about a period without hot water or heating. These issues did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord and as such, have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. There issues are, therefore, outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. The resident may wish to raise a separate complaint with the landlord regarding these issues, detailing why she is dissatisfied. She may then contact the Ombudsman once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal procedure.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a house.
The resident raised a complaint on 7 January 2021 and explained the following:
1. She said that when she moved into the property in September 2020, there were several repairs that needed doing. She said that her back door had no sealant around it and she had placed sealant on it at the time. She then found that rain entered the property underneath the door. A repair had been raised on 3 December 2020 and the contractor had placed more sealant around the door. She said that rain and snow still entered the property from under the door and she had found that the door was slanted. She felt that the contractor should have identified this on their visit. She added that the front door also let water into the property and that there were cracks and damp in the hallway around the loft entrance.
2. She said that the electric extractor in her kitchen did not work and neither did the smoke alarms. This was reported on 7 January 2021 and no one had arrived to repair these items. She said that her shower head was not working and the curtain in her shower did not go around the shower so the water went into her toilet. She also added that several wooden bars (shiplap) on the back of the building were rotting and had come away. She said that she could hear an animal in her loft and said that the contractors had looked at the outside of the building but had closed the repair job. She had reported the issue of an animal in her loft again that day.
3. She advised that she had spoken to other neighbours who were also experiencing issues with damp. She said that if the buildings were built properly, they wouldn’t have these issues. She said that the issues were causing stress and asked the landlord to resolve the repair issues.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 January 2021 and said it would respond within 15 working days.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response to the resident on 26 January 2021. It said that it had attempted to call the resident but it could not get through so it left a voicemail on 25 January 2021. It confirmed that it had booked an inspection for 27 January 2021 to inspect the outstanding issues and action each repair accordingly. It apologised for any inconvenience cause by the delay in completing the repairs. It also apologised that the resident had not experienced the level of service expected from its contactors. It said that the contractors’ manager had been made aware of the issues to ensure that this did not occur in the future. It confirmed that if the resident remained dissatisfied, she could ask for her complaint to be escalated.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 28 February 2021 and explained the following:
1. She said that an inspection had taken place and the operative had taken pictures of the repair issues. They had asked someone from the local authority’s pest control to look in the attic and confirmed that there was some activity, possibly from rats. She had since heard nothing for two weeks about the rats.
2. She had been informed that the repairs to the wooden slats on the building (shiplap) would be done in April 2021 and expressed concern that she had first brought this issue to the landlord’s attention in September 2020 when she moved in. She said that an operative had attended but had marked the work as completed. She felt that the property’s condition had deteriorated due to the bad weather.
3. She said that a representative had reported the issue of the rain coming in through the front and back door and that the back door was not straight on 18 February 2021. She said that operatives had attended on three separate occasions and it still was not fixed. Pest control had needed to be contacted again to put bait down for the rats. She felt that the contractors wasted money by attending jobs and not carrying out repairs.
The landlord issued a stage three complaint response on 26 March 2021 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in resolving the issues and any inconvenience the situation had caused. It said that an operative had attended the property on 25 February 2021 to identify the work required. Following the visit, the following works were arranged:
  1. The damp engineer attended on 28 February 2021 to look at the loft and saw no droppings, but would attend again on 27 March 2021 to see if anything had changed.
  2. A carpenter initially visited on 25 February 2021 to scrape out the old silicon to the back door and sill then replace with new silicon. A further appointment had been arranged for 12 March 2021 when the job was reported as completed.
  3. An appointment to caulk around the loft hatch and refit shiplap to the rear of the property had been booked for 27 March 2021. Following this, a painter would attend on 10 April 2021 to paint the shiplap to match the original colour.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 29 March 2021 and explained the following:
1. She advised that its recent response did not resolve her complaint as the carpenter who attended did not scrape out the old silicon from around her back door and replace it. They had attended on 27 March 2021 to scrape out the old silicon and had not replaced this. She said that there were now gaps around the back door where more vermin could enter. She said that they could not have reattended on 12 March 2021 to finish the job. They had placed some rubber at the bottom of the door to see if it improved the damp.
2. She added that no one had attended on 27 March 2021 to caulk around the loft hatch and this work had not been completed. She said that the damp engineer had looked at the back door and written something down but no repairs were completed on each of the four visits. The door was still not on straight and there was damp around the corners.
3. Pest control had been called to look in the attic and it was confirmed that droppings could be seen but nothing was put down to remedy the problem. They had attended again at the beginning of March 2021 to place poison in the loft but no follow-up work had been done.
4. She asked for the repairs to be completed as soon as possible as she had not been able to place flooring in the hallway due to the damp patches. She also asked that her complaint was escalated to the next stage.
The resident also contacted her local MP on the same day to seek help regarding the repair issues in the property. She advised that the new sealant around the back door had not been done and it still hung at an angle with damp entering the property in the corners. The caulking around the cracks near her loft door had not been done and the weatherproof painting to the shiplap around the building was still due to be completed. Following this, she was informed that all of the repairs had been booked for 10 April 2021.
The landlord responded to the resident on 7 April 2021 and detailed the repair orders which had been raised. It said that its contractor would be in touch with the resident directly to arrange appointments for the repairs which were due to be completed by 7 May 2021. The repairs included:
1. A repair to caulk around the loft hatch and refit the external wooden panels.
2. A repair to paint the wooden panels on the rear external wall.
3. A repair to scrape out and re-seal the threshold to the front door and back door.
The resident sent a further email to her MP on 19 May 2021 and explained the following:
1. She said that a supervisor had attended the property three times, including on 27 January 2021 and 25 February 2021.
2. The back door still let rain into the hallway and did not hang straight. She had reported this to the landlord again on 6 May 2021 but had not been provided a date for the repair or reference number.
3. She advised that the shiplap was not painted to match the original colour and only half of the varnishing had been completed. She added that the carpenter spilt varnish over her outside windowsill and walls. She added that the top panel had not been fixed back into place and there was a gap at the top of the roof.
4. She said that she wanted her back door to be hung straight so that it did not let rain into the property. She also wanted the shiplap painted the same colour and the loose board fixed. She expressed concern that she had not lived in a council property which had not been knocked down or had serious issues which had caused a significant amount of distress.
The landlord has advised that a further inspection was carried out on 20 May 2021. It was found that the threshold strip that had been installed to the door had not been installed correctly and water ingress was still apparent through the rear door. The report added that the shiplap that had been installed was in good condition with the exception of a gap at the top of the roof. The resident was informed that there was no current painting programme for the wooden panels. It confirmed that repairs would be raised for the identified work.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 21 May 2021 regarding the resident’s concerns about the repairs. The landlord responded on the same day and confirmed that findings of the visit on the previous day.
The resident emailed her MP on 1 June 2021 and said that she had not heard anything with regard to the repairs since an inspection was carried out on 21 May 2021. She expressed concern that the shiplap would not have weatherproofing paintwork completed and that she could not place flooring in her hallway until the issue with the door had been resolved.
The resident sent a further email to her MP on 23 June 2021 and explained the following:
1. She said that an operative had attended but nothing had been done about the shiplap. They had advised that the board did not need fixing as the area behind was sealed, then explained that the rain was getting in behind the shiplap and in through the back door.
2. The operative had fitted PVC strips around the back door and used caulk but rain had entered beneath the back door since the repair. She said that the door still hung at an angle and the operative was unable to remove the varnish stains from the windowsills and had instead spray-painted them white.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She said that the issues were affecting her health. She expressed dissatisfaction that operatives had attended seven times but had not fixed the water ingress through the back door. She said that the floor in the hallway had not dried out since she had moved in in September 2020. She wanted the external shiplap to be fully weatherproofed. She also wanted compensation for the distress and anxiety caused.
On 28 October 2021 the resident reported to this Service that the landlord had attended the property on 6 October 2021 to address the rain entering the back door. The operative had put clear silicon on the side of the ramp outside the back door but this had not resolved the issues. She said that she was still experiencing animal noises in her loft.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her 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 handling of the repair issues and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident and her family experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord would be responsible for repairs needed to external doors and door frames, the ceiling of a property and loft hatch as well as the external parts of the property. it confirms that a tenant should let the landlord know of any concerns related to pests. The policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 30 days of being reported. There are some larger repairs that may need special materials and arrangements to be completed. In these cases, the tenant shall be advised of what timescale to expect for the repairs.
In this case, it is unclear from the evidence provided as to when the resident first reported the issues with water leaking around her front and back doors, the wooden panels on the external parts of the property (shiplap) and pests. The landlord has advised that it had received no reports of damp in the property prior to the resident’s complaint. However, the resident has said that she reported the issues with the shiplap when she first moved in in September 2020 and had previously raised concerns about her doors in December 2020. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm that the repairs to the resident’s shower, shower rail, kitchen extractor fan and smoke alarms had been completed. However, the resident did not raise these issues again following her stage one complaint in January 2021 which indicates that these issues are likely to have been resolved.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as the repair records for the property. The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when it was requested by the Ombudsman. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures correctly.
Despite the lack of records, it is clear that there were significant delays in the repair issues being resolved. The landlord has acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses but there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was made aware of the reasons for such delays or the reasons that multiple inspections took place. Whilst the evidence suggests that some repair appointments were completed, the resident continued to report issues with her external doors and the shiplap.
In its stage two complaint response, the landlord detailed the repairs which had been completed and apologised for the delays. The resident disputed that the repairs to the sealant around her door had been completed 12 March 2021. Following this, the landlord sent a list of the repairs that were due to be completed by 7 May 2021. It did not apologise for any previous miscommunication or explain the reason why it believed that the issues had been resolved. This miscommunication is likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident as she had needed to follow-up with the landlord again. The landlord did not appear to take the resident’s comments on board as it reported to this service that the repairs to the back door had been completed on 27 March 2021, despite the evidence to suggest that the resident had continued to report the same issue after this date.
In summary, there has been service failure by the landlord in that it has not demonstrated that it had acted in line with its policies and procedures for handling repairs. The landlord has not provided reasonable explanations of the cause of the delays or sought to put things right for the resident by taking ownership of the repairs and carrying them out to completion following her complaint. The delays and poor communication are likely to have caused the resident significant inconvenience. The landlord has not taken adequate steps to offer redress to the resident and as such, financial compensation is warranted.
In view of the above, the landlord should offer compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused by needing to follow-up on multiple occasions and the delays in completing the works. Given the resident’s continuing concerns about pests in her loft and rain entering the property through her back door, which hangs at a slant, the landlord should inspect these repair issues and complete repairs accordingly within the timescales laid out in its repairs policy. If it is unable to adhere to its repair timescales, the landlord should contact the resident to clearly explain the reason for any delay and provide new timescales for each repair. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for repairs and communication, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were. As well as when repair issues were first reported, what actions were completed on the repair appointments and when the work was reported as completed.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a three-stage complaint procedure. A stage one complaint is where the issue can be resolved immediately, if this is not possible, the complaint will go to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should investigate the complaint and respond within 15 working days. It the resident remains dissatisfied with its decision, they can escalate their complaint to stage three. The landlord should provide a response within 20 working days.
In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (published on our website), the landlord would be expected to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. Where something has gone wrong a landlord should acknowledge this, provide an explanation and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. For example, where there was an unreasonable delay or where the landlord’s policy or procedure was not followed correctly without good reason. If warranted, the landlord would be expected to offer redress to the resident, which may include compensation or other actions to resolve the complaint.
In this case, the landlord issued its complaint responses within reasonable timescales. However, it has not demonstrated that it took adequate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns or explain its position to her. At stage one of its process, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed each aspect of the resident’s complaint, including her concern that she had asked for repairs to be raised previously but these had not been completed. The landlord should have taken steps to identify whether repairs had been raised previously and why these had not been completed. It should have also addressed the resident’s concerns related to her shower, her kitchen extractor fans and smoke alarms and pests in the roofing, but there is no evidence to suggest that it had done so.
At stage two, the landlord would have had the opportunity to identify any issues by looking at how the original complaint was dealt with. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided an explanation for the delays which had occurred since the resident’s initial reports of repair issues. The landlord did acknowledge that the resident had experienced delays and apologised for this, but did not explain how and why the delays had occurred or offer redress to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concern about its handling of her reports of pests at this stage. The landlord has not demonstrated that it had learnt from the resident’s complaint by identifying what it would do to prevent its service failures from reoccurring in the future.
It is noted that the extract provided from the landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord does not award compensation for any inconvenience and distress caused to a resident. It is good industry practice and the Ombudsman’s established view that financial compensation should be considered in recognition of distress and/or inconvenience experienced by residents as a result of errors made by their landlord. This is detailed in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and our Remedies Guidance, which are both available on our website. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord would be expected to comply with our approach and instruction on such matters. It is recommended that the landlord considers amending its complaints policy to set out its approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience moving forward, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and industry best practice
There has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint in that it failed to fully address the resident’s complaint in its responses. In this case, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took adequate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns or explain its position to her. As such, it has failed to provide a satisfactory response to the complaint. In view of this, the landlord should offer the resident compensation for the inconvenience caused by its failure to fully address her complaint. The landlord should also conduct a review of the resident’s complaint to identify points of learning and reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy to prevent similar service failures occurring in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs needed to the external doors of the property, the wooden external panelling and her concerns about pests in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint

Reasons

The landlord has not demonstrated that it had acted in line with its policies and procedures for handling repairs. This is likely to have cause the resident significant inconvenience as there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the landlord had communicated effectively with her during this time or provided updates on the status of her repairs. There were also delays in carrying out her repair requests and no evidence to confirm whether the issues have now been resolved.
Whilst the landlord responded in line with its policy timescales, it did not satisfactorily respond to the resident’s complaint or demonstrate effective dispute resolution. The landlord failed to address what happened or explain why there had been a delay in completing repairs which had previously been reported.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £350 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £250 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of her repair requests and its record keeping.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
2. The landlord is to conduct a review of the resident’s complaint to identify points of learning. A copy of this review should be sent to both the resident and the Ombudsman.
3. The landlord should also provide an update to the resident regarding her repairs to her back door, which she has reported hangs at a slant, and pests in the property. The landlord should also confirm its position regarding painting and weatherproofing the external shiplap, and the loose board at the top near the roof. The landlord should inspect these repair issues within 28 days and complete repairs accordingly within the timescales laid out in its repairs policy.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above service failures. This should include consideration of this Service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/;
It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for repairs and communication, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were. As well as when repair issues were first reported, what actions were completed on the repair appointment and when the work was reported as completed.
It is recommended that the landlord considers amending its complaints policy or to set out its approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience moving forward, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and industry best practice.
It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident regarding her concerns related to its handling of the repairs following a leak into her shower room and her reports of a loss of hot water and heating. The landlord should raise a formal complaint on her behalf accordingly as she remains dissatisfied with its handling of these repairs.