Birmingham City Council (202122179)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122179

Birmingham City Council

15 March 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 the resident’s reports of a missing torch following an annual gas safety check.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a three bedroomed inner terraced house where she has lived since 7 September 1992.  She resides at the property with her three children.
4. On 20 September 2021, the resident reported to the landlord’s contractor that her torch was missing following their annual gas check. The resident unsuccessfully chased a response from the contractor on two occasions.  On 18 October 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the missing torch and also expressed concern about the contractor’s delays in responding. The resident chased progress on her formal complaint with the landlord on a number of occasions.  The landlord provided the stage one response on 29 November 2021 and reported that the torch had not been found.
5. The resident remained dissatisfied, and the case progressed to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process.  The resident and her representative experienced difficulties in progressing the case through the landlord’s complaints process and on 6 January 2022, requested the Ombudsman’s assistance. Following a request from this Service, the landlord issued a final response on 10 January 2022.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service.  She believed the landlord’s complaint responses did not address her concerns about the delays in responses from both the contractor and the landlord.  The resident felt she should have been reimbursed for a new torch and compensated for the frustration she suffered. The resident was also dissatisfied that the stage two response implied that the loss of the torch was her fault as it should not have been stored in the boiler room.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of a missing torch following an annual gas safety check

7. This Service can see that on 20 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord’s contractor to request a search of its operatives bag as her torch had gone missing. Evidence indicates that at this time, the landlord’s contractor confirmed that it would look into the matter and return to her with an update.
8. In the absence of a response, however, the resident made further contact with the landlord on 27 September 2021 at which time, she was advised that the engineer was off sick and so the engineer’s manager would be contacted. The Ombudsman has considered the evidence and it appears that there was again a failure to contact the resident despite the promise of a further update.
9. In the resident’s subsequent complaint on 18 October 2021, she explained this, setting out her dissatisfaction with the disappearance of her torch and the length of time taken to receive a response.
10. This Service can see that on the following day, the landlord’s contractor did (internally) confirm that an investigation had been undertaken and that the torch had not been located. There is no evidence, however, that the landlord advised the resident that this had been done, or of the findings of this investigation, until it provided its complaint response on 29 November 2021. Noting that the resident raised the request almost two months prior, this was inappropriate. There was a clear failure to manage the resident’s expectation during this period.
11. While it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this within its complaint responses, this Service cannot see that it did. Instead, at stage two of the landlord’s process, it reiterated its earlier finding. There was subsequently no recognition of the landlord’s / contractor’s poor service. At minimum, the landlord should have offered an apology for the way that this matter had been handled, and the time taken for the resident to receive a response.
12. It is noted that the resident did eventually locate her torch, and therefore reimbursement of this was not required. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, there was still a failure in service, evidenced in the communication, the failure to manage the resident’s expectations, and in the subsequent length of time it took to confirm the outcome of the investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

13. A landlord’s complaints process is an essential aspect of its overall service provision. An efficient complaint process provides learning for future service provision and assists in developing positive landlord/tenant relationships. In this instance however, the evidence demonstrates a complaints process that: failed to address issues, failed to thoroughly investigate, took too long to progress through each stage of the complaints process, and lacked customer focus.
14. The resident and her representative were continually required to chase progress of the complaint as they were not provided with timely and regular updates. This undermined the landlord’s / resident’s relationship.
15. There is evidence of non-compliance with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as there were excessive and unreasonable delays in providing formal responses.
16. Although the landlord did not believe the resident’s complaint was justified, it was still required to provide her with a complaint response. This should have been issued within 10 working days of receiving the resident’s complaint on 18 October 2021, as per the landlord’s complaints policy. Contrary to this, however, the stage one outcome was not shared until 29 November 2021, 6 weeks after the complaint had been made.
17. The landlord has not provided a record of the resident’s request for escalation.  However, on 2 December 2021, the landlord’s records show that the resident’s representative asked to be contacted by the landlord as a matter of urgency.  There is no record of this contact being made. The resident and her representative experienced difficulties in progressing the case through the landlord’s complaints process and on 6 January 2022, requested Ombudsman assistance. It is unclear why the landlord did not move this matter to stage two, but as set out in the Code, landlord’s should not unreasonably prevent residents from exhausting their process.
18. Following a request from this Service, the landlord issued a final response on 10 January 2022. This response was 25 working days after the initial attempt to escalate the complaint was made.
19. It is of concern that the landlord’s final response did not address the specific issues the resident raised about communication.  As per the Code, landlords are expected to address all aspects of a resident’s complaint but it is clear that the landlord did not do this here.
20. Moreover, the language used in the stage two response implied some fault on the resident’s part, highlighting that under the conditions of tenancy, the resident was required to clear the space. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an unsympathetic approach and a response which was not resolution focused. The Ombudsman is also unable to see that this information is included in the tenants’ handbook or the letter provided to the resident about the appointment.
21. In light of the above, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a missing torch following an annual gas safety check.
23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

24. The should provide the resident with a written apology for the impact that the communication failures had on her and her representative.
25. The landlord should pay the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the missing torch.
26. The landlord should pay the resident £150 in recognition of its handling of the resident’s complaint.
27. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:

28. Review the information on complaints response times in the tenants’ handbook and ‘consumer guide – your views’ procedure.  This is to ensure consistency and compliance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
29. Review the information in the tenants’ handbook and in gas safety check appointment letters to ensure residents are aware of their responsibilities.