Birmingham City Council (202115767)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115767

Birmingham City Council

25 August 2023

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 handling of a flood at the property causing damage to the kitchen and bathroom floor covering.
The associated complaint and communication handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat on a secure tenancy with the landlord that began in 2008. The landlord is a local authority.

3. The landlord has recorded that the resident has mental health vulnerabilities.

4. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement places obligations on the landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of the property, including fixtures and fittings such as the water, electricity and gas supply.

5. The landlord’s tenant handbook refers to a comprehensive list of landlord and tenant repair responsibilities, including response times as follows:

Emergencies – if there is danger of injury or damage to the property, it aims to respond within 2 hours;
Urgent – it will respond within 1, 3 or 7 working days and gives examples of 1-day responses that include burst or leaking pipes and 3-7 days for items such as water leaks through the roof;
Non-urgent – all other repairs and it aims to do these within 30 days.

It offers appointments for all repairs except emergencies.

6. The landlord advertises a 2 stage complaints procedure, aiming to acknowledge complaints within 48 hours. It aims to respond at stage 1 within 15 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. However, it refers to an informal stage prior to the stage 1 complaint and advertises in its leaflet that it will aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.

Summary of Events

7. On 24 June 2021, the landlord’s records show a 1-day emergency job was raised for a water leak. The status shows as cancelled and no supporting notes are attached to the order.

8. On 30 June 2021, the landlord’s records show the resident complained to the landlord, stating the following:

On 24 June 2021, the resident came into her kitchen and found an enormous dark patch on the vinyl flooring; it was lifted up and water was present. The repairs team were called out and it was found that the issue was from the outside drains.
The operative explained to her that builders must have put bricks and tiles down the drain.
The water from the drain was coming back up and leaking into the foundations of the building. The resident was told water damage would dry out but she still had a stain on the vinyl floor a week later. The resident said she was unsure how much damage had been done to the kitchen cupboards or bathroom.
She said that she had previously experienced drain flies for over a month.
An inspection of the water damage was requested.
The vinyl flooring required replacement.

9. The landlord registered a stage 1 complaint and said a response was due on 14 July 2021.

10. On the same day, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had investigated the complaint; the engineer attended the property within the appointment time and witnessed the soiled floor in the kitchen and did advise the resident it would dry out. It confirmed the following actions:

The engineer unblocked the external drain and the resident witnessed the debris that came out of the drain.
The engineer advised the resident that the foundations were ok and that the blocked drain would not affect them. No follow-on works were reported.
The resident said she had booked an appointment for the kitchen units but when the landlord checked this, it had not received the report and it gave the resident the number to report this.

11. On 1 July 2021, the landlord’s notes confirm the resident was dissatisfied with the complaint response for the following reasons:

She did not feel that the complaint had been investigated.
The foundations and kitchen had not been checked by the landlord for damage.
The floor covering required replacement.
She disputed watching the engineer.
She could not book a kitchen repair as she did not know what she was reporting and she wanted someone to check the damage.
She had to rebook an appointment that same day due to an error with the system. It is unclear from the notes what this appointment refers to.

12. On 23 July 2021, the landlord’s records show a repair was ordered on a 1-day priority for a water leak and notes refer to an underground burst; the drains were leaking into the kitchen and bathroom affecting the walls and floor. The completion date shown was 26 July 2021.

13. On 9 August 2021, the resident called the landlord to inform it that on 29 July 2021, inspectors attended her home and said she required a dehumidifier, but despite calling repairs, they said they could not order one and she wanted to speak to someone who could order it. There is a lack of evidence to confirm how this was left and upon this Service recently requesting further information from the landlord, it has confirmed the following:

It is unclear as to the extent of what kitchen facilities the resident was left without, and if any of the items which were re-located were useable in another room, for example the fridge and microwave. It cannot clarify this point as the operatives and supervisor assigned to the job have since left the company. Because of this and due to the passage of time, it is unable to confirm exactly when the dehumidifier was ordered or delivered to the property.
On viewing the repairs and photographs attached to the jobs to gain some insight into the repairs, it has confirmed there is evidence of other cooking facilities being placed in the kitchen. The contractor has acknowledged service failure for which it sincerely apologised and said that it was making contact with the resident to discuss this further.

14. Further repair orders were subsequently raised as follows:

20 August 2021 – Damp and mould growth (noting the concrete kitchen floor) – routine repair and the completion date given was 14 September 2021.
20 August 2021 – Drains (noting the kitchen area) – raised on a 1-day priority and the completion date given was 27 August 2021. There are no notes attached to the orders giving a description of the work carried out.

15. On 15 September 2021, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response letter to the resident. It confirmed that the complaint was received 1 July 2021 and advised of the following:

The contractor had investigated the complaint and been in communication with the resident regarding a dehumidifier. There had been a delay in organising it and it had apologised.
Since the dehumidifier had been delivered, the resident had advised that it was doing its job and drying out the floor.
The resident said water had gone underneath the kitchen floor tiles and she had arranged for a damp inspection that had been rescheduled for 14 September 2021. It confirmed that a new toilet was fitted 23 August 2021.
It confirmed that a claim for replacement flooring should be made through the resident’s house contents insurance.
It gave details of how she could progress her complaint referring to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and then giving contact details for the Housing Ombudsman.

Summary of events after landlord’s complaints process

16. On 11 October 2021, the resident contacted this Service about her dissatisfaction with the outcome of her complaint and she said repairs were still outstanding, she could smell damp and that she had not been able to use the kitchen and was concerned about her asthma and mental health. She said that she wanted an apology from the landlord as there had been a lack of communication which had resulted in her having to make chase up calls. She also wanted the landlord to reimburse the rent for not being able to use the kitchen facilities and for the stress caused to her. Also, she said that the landlord had previously said it would replace the vinyl flooring and the decorator would make contact but this never happened.

17. On 11 October 2021, the landlord’s repair history shows an order was raised for damp treatment to the bathroom and kitchen floor. A completion date of 22 October 2021 is shown.

18. On 4 November 2021, a further order was raised for the floor tiles with a completion date of 21 December 2021. No specific details are shown.

19. On 29 December 2021, another repair order shows the same job as 4 November 2021 noting “audit rectification works” and a completion date of 6 January 2022 is shown.

20. During December 2021 to March 2022, various repair orders were raised by the landlord that may have related to the associated work from the leak such as vinyl floor tiles and kitchen cupboards. However, it is unclear what work, if any, was carried out.

21. On 10 January 2022, the landlord confirmed the completion date of works but has not confirmed any details of these.

22. On 13 March 2022, the resident contacted this Service. She said that she had to pay for the replacement of the kitchen and bedroom floor coverings and the kitchen had been out of use for 6 months. She said that the issue was the refund for items as she believed the operatives left piles of rubble down the drain, causing the flat to flood.

23. On 6 April 2022, the resident emailed this Service as she was concerned about the drains and that other neighbours along the side of same building had similar issues, including mould and damp.

24. On 28 April 2022, the landlord’s officer commented that the contractor attended and carried out works within the agreed contractual timescale and the cause of the leak was fair wear and tear. It confirmed that unless there was neglect by repair workers, or failure to rectify the leak within contractual timescales, then it could not accept responsibility.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a flood at the property causing damage to the kitchen and bathroom floor covering

25. The flood at the resident’s home occurred in June 2021 and the landlord and resident have confirmed that it attended the same day. The cause of the flood appears to have been from a blocked outside drain. The landlord acted appropriately and prioritised the repair in accordance with its repairs priority timescale for attending to this type of repair within 1 day. It confirmed the drain was unblocked the same day, noting no follow-on works were required. However, it is of concern that the landlord’s records are vague and its recorded job for this day refers to a cancelled order.

26. The resident complained to the landlord by the end of June 2021 and the landlord noted the resident’s concerns, including a request for an inspection of the water damage and the kitchen vinyl floor covering. The landlord confirmed in its investigation that an engineer had attended within its stated timeframes, witnessed the soiled kitchen floor and advised the resident it would dry out, noting no follow-on work was required. However, the resident was concerned about damage to the kitchen units and confirmed that an inspection had not been booked – the landlord responded by giving the resident the number for the repairs line to order the inspection.

27. Given the nature of the report and the resident’s concerns of water damage, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not follow up on concerns about damage and book in an inspection of the water damage. Instead, it put the onus on the resident to follow this up which was an unreasonable request in the circumstances. This would have no doubt added further to the resident’s distress of having to deal with water damage in essential rooms in her home.

28. Further, it is of concern that despite the resident’s reports of damage to the floor coverings and her allegations that this was caused by operatives blocking the drain, it later dismissed the allegation and advised her to claim off of her own contents insurance. This would normally be the correct channel for routine contents damage but given that there was an allegation of operative damage, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to advise her how she could make a claim under its liability insurance. It is not for the Ombudsman to say whether or not a claim would have been successful, but the landlord did have an obligation to appropriately signpost the resident in this direction.

29. It is unclear whether the second leak in July 2021 (noted as an underground burst and affecting the kitchen and bathroom) was linked in any way to the original drain issue. This leak was prioritised as an urgent repair and the landlord’s records show that rather than completing works within 1 day, it took 3 days for completion. Due to the nature of the report, and the fact the landlord had already made the decision to prioritise the order to be completed within 1 day, it was inappropriate for the landlord to delay in completing this work. Again, it is unclear what work, if any, was carried out on this order as no records are available. The landlord’s failure to determine whether this fault was separate to, or a follow on, to the earlier drain works meant that it was not resolution-focused or thorough in its investigations.

30. The resident reports that an inspection of her home took place at the end of July 2021 when it was confirmed that a dehumidifier was required. Again, record keeping was inadequate as the landlord does not have information about the inspection and it has confirmed that it does not know when the dehumidifier was taken to, and collected from, the resident’s home. This is of concern as the landlord cannot demonstrate that it held key information and was able to manage the case effectively. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) highlights important recommendations for landlords to ensure record keeping forms a key part of its effective housing management.

31. It is inappropriate that it took a month for it to carry out an inspection of the water damage. Given that it had affected the kitchen and bathroom areas (essential areas for cooking and bathing), it is unreasonable that the landlord did not act sooner and proactively manage the inspection. The resident reported that she was unable to use the facilities in the kitchen for 6 months and the landlord has not been able to fully substantiate what action it took to ensure she was left with the use of essential facilities. The landlord has confirmed that there were some facilities but it could not confirm the details nor offer evidence as to how it reached this conclusion.

32. Drainage and damp and mould repair orders are shown for August and October 2021 which the resident had to initiate. These were partially noted as relating to the kitchen floor but it is unclear what work, if any, was carried out as the landlord has not provided any evidence. Similarly, another floor tile repair order was raised in November 2021 and recorded as complete in December 2021. However, the landlord has also confirmed that associated work at the property was not completed until January 2022 but again, it is unclear what this relates to as again the landlord has not evidenced the nature of the works.

33. In summary, there was a period of 7 months where the resident was concerned about water damage to her home. She has demonstrated that she had to continue to contact the landlord to initiate an inspection and associated repair work and the landlord was not proactive in managing her concerns.

34. The landlord not pro-actively organisation an inspection of the water damage, despite being aware of 2 drain faults; it delayed in providing the dehumidifier and further delayed unreasonably in carrying out follow-on works and it cannot evidence its effective record keeping of the case. Given the allegations of operative damage to the drain, it inappropriately made the decision that it did not accept liability instead of signposting the resident to its insurance department in relation to submitting a liability insurance claim.

The associated complaint and communication handling

35. The resident complained to the landlord shortly after the leak occurred. The landlord noted the resident’s complaint promptly, confirming that it registered a stage 1 complaint and noted its timeframe for responding to be by mid July 2021, suggesting it was responding within 15 working days.

36. It is unclear as to whether the landlord’s procedure for answering stage 1 responses is 10 or 15 working days as the information within its procedure suggests 15 working days and its complaints leaflet suggests 10 working days. Nevertheless, the landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint very quickly (the same day).

37. The resident escalated the complaint in early July 2021, partly because she did not feel the landlord had investigated all of her concerns. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint and it did not respond until mid-September 2021, nearly 3 months later. This is outside of the landlord’s timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Further, the landlord’s complaint timescales do not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (10 working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for stage 2 complaints).

38. There is also no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated throughout the period of its delayed response. When it did reply, it did recognise a failing in the delay in organising the dehumidifier and it apologised for this. However, it failed to assess its service failures in full or demonstrate that it had considered compensating the resident for the impact its failings had caused her, including the distress and inconvenience.

39. The stage 2 complaint response gave incorrect details of how the resident could escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman. It referred to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) but then correctly gave details of the Housing Ombudsman. This was inappropriate and the landlord should ensure that it fully complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, particularly in relation to the acknowledgement of complaints, responding within appropriate timescales and giving proper details on how to escalate a complaint to the correct Ombudsman Service.

40. In summary, the landlord did not comply with its complaints procedure or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in relation to acknowledgement and response times of the stage 2 complaint. Evidence suggests it is unclear on its own complaint timescales and it gave incorrect details of escalation of the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman. It also failed to demonstrate that it had fully investigated the repairs history at the property and did not demonstrate any learning from the complaint.

Determination (decision)

41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a flood at the property causing damage to the kitchen and bathroom floor covering.

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to the associated complaint and communication handling.

Reasons

43. The landlord failed to:

Assess and resolve the associated repairs at the property as a result of the flood damage within a reasonable time frame.
Provide a dehumidifier within a reasonable time frame.
Signpost the resident to its insurance team so she could make a claim through its liability insurance.
Provide adequate repair and inspection records.

44. The landlord failed to:

Comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in relation to the following:
1. Its timescales for responding to stage 1 and 2 complaints do not correspond to those within the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Its own information suggests different timescales.
2. It failed to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint response.
Communicate with the resident and delayed in sending its stage 2 complaint response.
Recognise the full extent of service failures, consider compensation as a resolution to the complaint or demonstrate how it would learn from the complaint.
Give accurate information to the resident on how she could escalate the complaint to the correct Ombudsman Service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

45. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified within this report.

46. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £1200 as follows:

£1000 in relation to its failures in handling of a flood at the property causing damage to the kitchen and bathroom floor coverings.
£200 in relation to the associated complaint and communication handling.

47. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord to:

Write to the resident and advise her how she can make a claim under its liability insurance.
Inspect the property to confirm if it is satisfied with the completion of drainage and remedial works or provide its action plan, with timescales, to resolve any outstanding repairs. The landlord should write to the resident and this Service within 2 weeks of the inspection to confirm the outcome and its action plan.

48. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is to review the following:

The handling of the repair and associated works at the property and provide this Service with its action plan on how it intends to improve, including:
1. how it will check what remedial works are necessary following leaks to properties;
2. how it will ensure that follow-on works are monitored to completion within its target repair timescales.
The complaint and communication handling of this case and provide its action plan on how it intends to improve, including its updated self-assessment to ensure it is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The recording keeping of this complaint in relation to its repair orders and inspections and provide this Service with an explanation as to how it will ensure that it will retain detailed and accurate records of the outcomes of repairs orders.

49. It is noted the Ombudsman’s special report on the landlord of January 2023 addresses some of the above issues and this should be reflected within the landlord’s response to this Service.

50. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.