Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Birmingham City Council (202203028)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203028

Birmingham City Council

19 May 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 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaking radiators.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house, and it has no vulnerabilities recorded for her.
  2. On 22 March 2022, the resident advised the landlord, via its website, that the kitchen radiator at her property was leaking, although she reported that she did not receive a confirmation or response to this. Whereas it recorded that it arranged an appointment to attend this for 23 March 2022, but that, when it attended her property, it could not gain access.
  3. On 25 March 2022, the resident again reported the kitchen radiator leak to the landlord, and another appointment for this was subsequently rebooked from 30 to 28 March 2022. On 27 March 2022, she informed its out-of-hours service that both her kitchen and living room radiators were now leaking. The landlord advised the resident, however, that the leaks were not emergencies because she had contained them by using a saucepan, and it told her to ring it back on the following day during office hours.
  4. The resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 27 March 2022 about damage to her kitchen and living room floors that were warped and ruined from the radiator leaks, and that the leaks that she had reported to it on that day had not been classed as an emergency by it. She wanted compensation from it for her damaged flooring, for which she submitted a claim to it for £700 on 30 March 2022, and for the leaks to be repaired by it, as she stated that she was disabled and classed as a priority but had not been treated by it as such.
  5. On 28 March 2022, the resident asked the landlord to rebook the radiator leak appointment that had been arranged for that day, as she had a hospital appointment and did not know how long she would be at the hospital. By that time, however, it had already attended her property and could not gain access to this again.
  6. The resident further contacted the landlord on 30 March 2022, and informed it once more that both of her kitchen and living room radiators were leaking, and that the boiler pressure was dropping. It then attended this on the same day and found that the pressure drop was being caused by the leak affecting the living room radiator. The landlord therefore isolated the leak and raised follow-on works to repair both radiators, which were completed on 1 April 2022.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 6 April 2022. It acknowledged that it had failed to follow correct procedures when the resident had contacted it to report the kitchen and living room radiator leaks on 27 March 2022. Instead of raising an emergency repair for this, the landlord had advised her to call it back again on the next day. It apologised for this, and for any inconvenience caused, and advised that the mistake would be addressed with the adviser concerned. The landlord nevertheless informed the resident that compensation was only payable for this if there was evidence of negligence by it, or if legal liability was accepted by it. It provided her with a claim form for it to determine its liability, but it advised her to first contact her own contents insurer, if she had one.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure on 13 April 2022, however, because she disagreed with the landlord’s decision on her compensation claim, as she believed that she was entitled to compensation because her floors had been damaged by the leaks. According to its internal email of 20 April 2022, she had advised it that the above reported non-access appointments had not been booked with her, and that its operatives had randomly turned up.
  9. The resident had also reportedly informed the landlord that her radiators had still not been replaced, and just that a valve on one of the radiators had been changed. She also stated that she had already previously sent it evidence of the damage to her floors, along with her completed compensation claim form by recorded delivery, and wanted confirmation of receipt of this from it.
  10. The resident then informed the landlord on 22 May 2022 that she had not received any further responses from it. Her local councillor subsequently contacted it to chase a response on 25 May and 5 and 23 June 2022, together with this Service on 14 June 2022, at her request. The landlord also attended the resident’s property on 28 July 2022, in order to assess any damage that may have been caused by the leaks from her radiators. It found that there had been some “minimal” damage that would have been contained within the area around one of the radiators. There was additionally found to be a little lift on one of the joints of the floor, and that the skirting had slightly come away from the wall.
  11. In an internal email dated 3 August 2022, the landlord realised that it had miscommunicated with the resident when it had told her that her radiator would have to be replaced as part of the repair. Instead, she should have been advised that the radiator had been working, but that a valve needed repairing, with it then informing her of these findings when it declined her compensation claim on 8 August 2022.
  12. The landlord subsequently issued its final stage complaint response on 14 September 2022, after further intervention by this Service to again request that it do so on 6 September 2022. It advised her that it would not be awarding her any compensation because the damage to her floors was “minimal”, and because it had attended her radiator leaks within its accepted timescales. The landlord instead advised the resident to take out her own home contents insurance in case of future incidents because it was not responsible for insuring the contents of its tenants’ homes.
  13. The resident then complained to this Service because she was unhappy that the landlord had refused her compensation claim. She was not happy with the amount of time that it had taken to repair the radiator leaks that it had not classed as an emergency. The resident also advised that, due to the damage to her floors, she was now exposed to cold concrete which was detrimental to her health as a disabled person. She wanted her flooring to be replaced by it, and for it to pay her compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has complained that the length of time taken by the landlord to repair her radiator leaks led to her flooring being damaged, which she has asked it to replace and pay her compensation for. However, it is outside the scope of this investigation to determine liability or award payments for damages to her flooring, as this Service does not have the authority or expertise necessary to do so. This is in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which confirms that we may not consider complaints concerning matters where the resident is seeking an outcome that is not within our authority to provide. This investigation will instead consider whether the landlord’s response to her reports of leaking radiators, and its handling of her complaint about this, was fair in all the circumstances of her case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaking radiators

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy document gives a response timescale for emergency repairs, where there is risk of injury or damage to the property, of within two hours of it issuing the instruction to its contractors. Urgent repairs, concerned with protecting the health and safety of the resident or the security of the property such as leaking pipes, have a response timescale of either one, three or seven working days.
  2. The landlord’s tenant’s handbook confirms that it is responsible for repairing any fixtures and fittings that it has provided in its properties, including heating systems. This also confirms that its residents are responsible for repairing any floor coverings that they have fitted themselves.
  3. The resident informed the landlord of her kitchen radiator leak on 22 March 2022 and, at that time, it raised a 24-hour priority repair. This means that the repair was classified by it as an urgent repair under its repairs policy document, with a response timescale of within one working day. The landlord did attend the resident’s property within this timescale on 23 March 2022, but it was unable to gain access to the property, and so it could not carry out the repair on that day. In response, she advised that she had not been informed about the repair appointment, or received confirmation of her report of the repair.
  4. There is no clear evidence from the landlord’s records to confirm whether the resident had been informed about the radiator leak appointment of the 23 March 2022.However, if it had kept full and accurate logs of her report of and its response to this, then it would have been able to clearly showwhetherher report had been confirmed, and if she had been informed of the appointment.Therefore, this was a failing by the landlord to either inform the resident about the appointment, or to keep an accurate record of its response to her report about the leak.
  5. It also would have been helpful if the landlord would have then contacted the resident to rearrange the appointment for 24 March 2022, because the repair had been classified by it as an urgent one-working-day repair under its repairs policy document. This states that it believes that there is risk to the health and safety of the resident or to the security of the property from such repairs, including leaking pipes.
  6. In fact, the next time that any contact was made in relation to the kitchen radiator leak was by the resident on 25 March 2022. At that time, she was advised by the landlord that an appointment had been raised for 30 March 2022, although it did subsequently rebook the appointment for 28 March 2022, in order to meet the repairs policy document’s one-working-day urgent repair timescale. Although the landlord had initially failed to book the appointment within the agreed timescale, it did then correct this to be within that timescale, which was appropriate.
  7. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord’s out-of-hours service on 27 March 2022, advising it that now both her kitchen and her living room radiators were leaking, although she was using a saucepan to contain them. It advised her that, since it considered that she had contained the leaks, repairing them was not an emergency, and that she should call back the next day, during office hours, in order to book an appointment. This was not an appropriate response by the landlord, which it confirmed in its stage one complaint response, that found that it had failed to act appropriately when it had classified the leaks as non-emergency.
  8. The landlord confirmed that it should have instead raised an emergency appointment within two hours, in order to assess the extent and seriousness of the leaks. Therefore, this was a failing it to act in line with its repairs policy document, as it failed to attend the resident’s property within the emergency timescale of two hours and assess the seriousness of the leaks.
  9. The landlord’s stage one complaint response did apologise to the resident for its failure to raise the 27 March 2022 leaks repair as an emergency, and for any inconvenience caused to her by this, and it advised that the mistake would be addressed with the relevant staff member, which was suitable. However, it should have also considered how this affected her, as well considering providing her with a further remedy for this and its poor record keeping in the form of financial compensation, and therefore it acted unreasonably by failing to do so. This is because the landlord accepted that there had been a failing by it, and its obligation after that would have been to assess the impact of its failing upon the resident.
  10. It is also noted that, had the landlord demonstrated that it had booked and confirmed the above repair appointments correctly with the resident at the time, this may have decreased the need for further appointments, potentially including any that were recorded as no access.
  11. An appointment to carry out the kitchen and living room radiator leak repairs was rebooked for 28 March 2022, but the resident contacted the landlord on that date and asked for this to be rescheduled because she was at the hospital and uncertain about when she would be finished. By that time, however, it had already attended her property and had no access. In relation to this appointment, there was no failing by the landlord.
  12. This is because the landlord had attended the resident’s property as planned before she had asked it to change the date. It did then attend as soon as was possible, and repaired the living room radiator on 30 March 2022, and completed follow-on works on 1 April 2022. This meant that it took eight working days for the repairs to be completed from the first report of these on 22 March 2022. While the landlord contributed to this delay, it is also noted that the work was additionally delayed because the resident had had to cancel a repair appointment due to a hospital appointment. Although she was not at fault for this, this did mean that it was not responsible for entire delay.
  13. Therefore, while the landlord appropriately referred the resident to her own contents insurer and invited her to submit a liability claim to it for her damaged flooring that it found only “minimal” damage not requiring compensation for, it failed to apply its repairs policy document’s timescale for emergency repairs for her leaking radiators. It also delayed completing the repair within the policy’s urgent repair timescale, did not record or communicate about this appropriately, or consider compensating her for the effect of these failings. These actions were not in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  14. According to this Service’s remedies guidance, where there was a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident that it did not fully put right then over £100 compensation is recommended. It has therefore been ordered below to pay her £200 compensation. This is because, although the landlord did acknowledge some of its failings and made some attempt to put them right, it failed to acknowledge all of its failings, and its remedy was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. It is also noted that this Service has already made recommendations to improve the landlord’s handling of repairs, record keeping and compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint of 27 March 2022 within its comments, compliments and complaints policy’s 15-working-day response timescale on 6 April 2022, which was appropriate. However, the policy also states that it will issue its final stage complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated, she escalated her complaint on 13 April 2022, and it issued its final stage complaint response on 14 September 2022. This was 104 working days later, and only after the intervention of this Service on 14 June and 6 September 2022, as well as her local councillor on 25 May and 5 and 23 June 2022.
  2. This 84-working-day final stage complaint response delay was therefore a failure by the landlord to act in line with its comments, compliments and complaints policy, as well as this Service’s complaint handling code, by requiring us and her local councillor to chase it for a response. The final stage complaint response nevertheless did not acknowledge, apologise or offer any compensation for the delay, which was unreasonable. Whereas this Service’s remedies guidance recommends compensation of over £100 when the landlord failed to acknowledge and made no attempt to put right its failings.
  3. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered below to apologise to the resident for its poor complaint handling in her case, and to pay her another £200 compensation for this, due to the length of the delay in its final stage complaint response, and because this Service and her local councillor had to intervene repeatedly on her behalf. It is also noted we have already made recommendations to improve its complaint handling.
  4. On a separate note, it is of concern that the resident has advised both the landlord and this Service that she is disabled. However, it subsequently informed us that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for her. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to contact the resident to request details of her vulnerabilities from her, and to update its records for these accordingly.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of radiator leaks.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £400 total compensation within four weeks, which is broken down into £200 each for its failings in response to her reports of radiator leaks and its poor complaint handling.
    2. Write to the resident within four weeks to apologise for its poor handling of her complaint.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to request details of her vulnerabilities from her, and to update its records for these accordingly.
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendation.