Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Birmingham City Council (202423479)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423479

Birmingham City Council

4 July 2025

 

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 response to the resident’s report of a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 26 May 2015. The property is a 3 bedroom low rise flat. The landlord has confirmed the resident has no known vulnerabilities.
  2. On 2 June 2024 the landlord raised a repair for a water leak. However, it was subsequently cancelled.
  3. On 12 June 2024 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord that she had requested a repair but had not received a response. She asked it to make an appointment.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 18 June 2024. It confirmed that it had raised a repair on 2 June 2024. However, it was unable to gain access when it attended on 4 June and the job was cancelled. A new repair was raised on 13 June 2024 and it attended on 17 June 2024. During the visit it concluded that there had been an “underground burst.” A follow on appointment was booked for 19 June 2024.
  5. It decided that the complaint was “unjustified.” It also said that its contractor was aware of the need to update residents regarding appointments and it apologised on their behalf that it “did not happen in this instance.”
  6. On 1 July 2024 the resident advised the landlord that there had been no progress. Consequently the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on the 5 July 2024.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 10 August 2024. It apologised for the delay in its response which it said was due to the high volume of current cases. It said its contractor was aware of the need to contact residents in the event of delays or nonattendance and to provide updates on progress. It said that “regrettably” this did not happen. It confirmed it had escalated the issue to management level to “try to ensure” this did not occur in the future. Its contractor had advised that the job was issued to their subcontractor on 18 July 2024.
  8. It said the complaint was “partly justified.” It added that although the event was “out of our control” it acknowledged there were delays. It said it was “sincerely sorry” for the “upset and inconvenience” caused.

Events post internal complaints process.

  1. On 17 October 2024 the resident submitted an online form to us to request our assistance. She said that the burst water pipe was leaking “continuous water” into her rear garden.
  2. On 29 April 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it had carried out a further investigation into her complaint. It apologised for its complaint response and the length of time taken to complete the repair which was outside its timescales. It said it did not deliver a service in line with its service standards, policies and procedures. It offered £875 compensation in recognition of its failures and the impact on the resident and her household.
  3. In an email to us dated 30 June 2025 the landlord confirmed that it reattended and the leak was repaired on 6 May. Slabs were then relayed and a small area of brickwork made good. It attended the following day to relay the path which had sunk. Rectification works to the flooring and boxing in the bathroom were completed on 23 June 2025.
  4. It also confirmed that the resident had asked to raise a further complaint on 2 January, 7 March and 31 May 2025. The landlord decided that in each case the complaint related to the issue it had already investigated. Therefore it would not provide a further complaint response which would be “duplication.”

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

  1. The purpose of this investigation is to assess whether the landlord’s response during the complaint process, which concluded on 10 August 2024, was reasonable.
  2. The landlord has confirmed that it declined to accept the resident’s subsequent complaints during the period 2 January to 31 May 2025 because it considered them to be duplicates.
  3. Our approach set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that we may not consider complaints that were made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure.
  4. This investigation has considered the landlord’s overall response beyond 10 August 2024 because:
    1. For the reasons set out below we consider the landlord’s decision to decline ongoing complaints to be a complaint handling failure.
    2. The resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction arises from works carried out in relation to the same substantive issue raised during the formal complaints process.
    3. On 29 April 2025 the landlord carried out a further review of its response outside of the complaints process.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy says it will respond to urgent repairs within 7 working days and to routine repairs within 30 days of them being reported. It sets out that when a repair needs special materials and arrangements the resident should be updated regarding timescales. It also states that all responsive repairs will be carried out by appointment.
  2. The landlord’s Compensation Policy which says the landlord and its contractors acting on its behalf aim to provide a “good quality service.” When it fails to meet these standards and commitments it will take “reasonable action to put this right as quickly as possible.”
  3. The resident reported the leak on 2 June 2024 and a works order was raised accordingly. However, the repairs logs show it was cancelled. In its stage 1 complaint response of 18 June 2024 the landlord said this was because the resident did not provide access. However, there is no evidence that the landlord notified the resident of the appointment in accordance with its Repairs Policy. Furthermore, there are no ‘live’ records relating to its attempt to gain access which is a record keeping failure.
  4. The repair logs show that following the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 12 June 2024, a new order was raised on 13 June. The log shows the target date was 24 June 2024 which was in line with its timescales. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 18 June 2024 confirmed it had attended on 17 June. It identified that the leak was caused by an “underground burst” and a follow on appointment was booked for 19 June 2024.
  5. In the resident’s email to the landlord of 19 June 2024 the resident said the contractor that attended could not repair the leak. They had said the job would need to be carried out by another contractor. The resident said she “didn’t know what was going on.” The repair logs note that the job was completed on 19 June 2024 which was a record keeping failure.
  6. An internal email, also sent on 19 June 2024, said that a plumber had attended but was unable to carry out works. This was because it was an “underground burst” requiring a different contractor. It said the repair had already been identified on 17 June and asked when it would be resolved “as a matter of urgency.”
  7. That the landlord failed to allocate the job to an appropriate contractor was a failure. This caused distress, time and trouble to the resident. It appropriately emailed the resident on the same day to apologise.
  8. On 21 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say she had still not heard anything. She said there was “water everywhere” which was running into her path and patio. An internal email sent on the same day confirmed its contractor attended that afternoon. They confirmed there was a “constant” flow of water but that it was not flooding. They acknowledged this was an “understandable cause of frustration” because the garden was “extremely well maintained.” Its subcontractor was asked to make an appointment with the resident as part of the landlord’s “complaint commitment.”
  9. While this was positive the landlord failed to provide updates to the resident. She was therefore caused further inconvenience when she emailed the landlord on 21 June 2024 to chase. She added there were mosquitoes “everywhere” in the garden and “no one seems to know what anyone is doing.”
  10. The landlord did not respond until 1 July 2024. This was an unreasonable delay which compounded the resident’s frustration and uncertainty. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident and by now was over its target response date.
  11. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Complaints about Repairs sets out that where repairs are contracted out the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Therefore, landlords need to ensure they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services.
  12. In its email to the resident of 1 July 2024 the landlord asked her to confirm if the subcontractor had booked an appointment with her. It should have proactively managed resolution of the substantive issue as part of the complaint process. It was therefore unreasonable to put the onus on the resident to provide this information.
  13. On 5 July 2024 the landlord emailed the contractor to chase, stating that the case was of an “urgent nature.” It did not receive a response and emailed again on 17 July. This led to a meeting with the contractor the following day. An update provided after the meeting confirmed a new order had been received and a subcontractor instructed. It was agreed that the contractor would tell the landlord when the appointment details were received.
  14. While this was positive by now over a month had passed since the resident reported the leak. There was no meaningful acknowledgement of the distress caused to the resident by the delay. The landlord’s emails to the contractor lacked a sense of purpose. For example, it failed to consider escalating the matter to a more senior level to expedite a resolution. Furthermore it failed to pursue an explanation as to why the subcontractor had not contacted the resident as set out in its internal email of 21 June 2024. This was a missed opportunity to learn from the complaint and identify how it might do things differently.
  15. On 19 July 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to advise it was waiting for the subcontractor to issue an appointment. On 10 August 2024 the landlord emailed the contractor to seek an update because there were no updates in the notes. It was positive that the landlord monitored the progress of the repair. However, it is unclear why it waited so long to chase the matter. Its inaction compounded the existing delay creating further distress to the resident. By that time it had been over 2 months since the resident first reported the leak. Its inaction was unreasonable because it failed to provide a service in line with its Repairs Policy.
  16. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also issued on 10 August 2024. It acknowledged there had been failures which caused upset and inconvenience to the resident. However, it said these were due to an “event outside of its control.” As set out above it was obligated to ensure its contractor carried out works on its behalf in line with its Repairs Policy therefore its response was inappropriate.
  17. The leak was resolved on 6 May 2025, 11 months after the resident first reported the issue. Rectification works were fully resolved after 12 months. The landlord failed to use the complaints process to resolve the substantive issue at the earliest opportunity and failed to identify learning to do things differently.
  18. On 29 April 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident to say it had carried out further investigation into the complaint and offered £875 compensation. The landlord’s follow up response was sent 10 months after it was put on notice about the leak, and 8 months after the resident exhausted its complaint procedure on the issue. It failed to provide any mitigating circumstances for its failures.
  19. The failures identified in this report amount to severe maladministration because the landlord repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a detrimental impact on the resident. This demonstrated a failure to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes. The compensation offered by the landlord is not considered proportionate to the failings identified in this report.
  20. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1300 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there has been a severe long term impact. The landlord may deduct the £875 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  21. We carried out a special investigation into the landlord in January 2023. We found that the landlord had no framework in place for the record keeping it expects of its staff and contractors. Poor records meant it had limited information about what needed doing and whether it had been done. Our report also noted that the landlord’s contractor had acknowledged improvements were needed in its response to repairs and communication. It is concerning to note that 18 months later the same failures occurred in this complaint.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Comments, Compliments, Complaints and Enquiries Procedure Guide (complaints policy) says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days of receipt and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 12 June 2024. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day to confirm receipt. It said the complaint would be assigned in 48 hours at which point it would send an acknowledgement. There is no evidence that it did so which was inappropriate. However, its complaint response was issued on 18 June 2024 within time.
  3. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights highlights that the complaints process should show residents their opinions and time are of value. While the landlord may have decided not to uphold the complaint, the use of the word “unjustified” implies the resident had not acted reasonably by raising the complaint. Therefore the language used to confirm its decision was inappropriate.
  4. The spotlight report also confirms that the complaints process is an opportunity to reset the balance. While the landlord apologised for its contractor’s failure to contact the resident it did not reset the balance by upholding the complaint. Therefore the decision itself was inappropriate.
  5. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that outstanding actions must be tracked and actioned promptly. At stage 1 a further appointment was made for 19 June 2024 to resolve the substantive issue. However, the allocated contractor did not have the right skills to repair the leak. This demonstrated that the landlord had not managed completion of the action appropriately.
  6. Although the resident did not expressly request to escalate her complaint to stage 2, the landlord appropriately used its discretion to move it to the next stage. On 5 July 2024 it emailed the resident to confirm the same and said it would respond within 20 working days meaning it was due on 2 August 2024.
  7. On 16 July 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say it usually responded within 10 working days but it needed further information from her to be able to respond. It asked her to confirm if the contractor had been in contact with her and said it would respond within 10 working days of her providing this information.
  8. The landlord’s complaints policy says it issues stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days. The email was confusing because it contradicted its earlier email to the resident. It was inappropriate to delay its complaint response until she responded. Furthermore, it should have been able to obtain this information from its own records.
  9. The resident replied to the landlord on the same day, 16 July 2024, to say she had not been contacted. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 10 August 2024. This was 6 working days outside of its original 20 working day target and 9 working days outside of the 10 working day target taken from 16 July 2024.
  10. It appropriately apologised for the delay in its complaint response and provided an explanation. However, it failed to consider offering redress in line with its Compensation Policy which says it will consider paying compensation for “poor complaint handling.”
  11. Its response lacked detail and failed to demonstrate that it had undertaken a thorough investigation into the resident’s complaint. It said its contractor had assured it that the repair had been issued to subcontractors on 18 July 2024. The response did not reflect the resident’s lived experience and did not give sufficient consideration of the delays. It failed to provide an explanation and/or apology as to why works had not progressed since then. Therefore, it did not do all it could to use the complaint to resolve the substantive issue and learn from the process.
  12. As set out above, the resident tried to make further complaints to the landlord following its stage 2 response. This was because she was dissatisfied with its ongoing handling of the repair. Given that the landlord’s stage 2 response of 10 August 2024 was issued prior to any works commencing its decision to decline the complaint was inappropriate. It should have raised a fresh stage 1 complaint so it could investigate and respond to events that took place after its final complaint response. Its review of 29 April 2025 was not part of a formal complaints process. Therefore, its response was inappropriate.
  13. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a member of the senior leadership team to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £1450 compensation comprised of:
      1. £1300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s report of a leak. The landlord may deduct the £875 it has offered if this has already been paid.
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
  2. Evidence of compliance with the above orders should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
  3. Within 8 weeks of the date of the determination a member of the senior leadership team should carry out a case review which:
    1. Identifies why it did not resolve the substantive issue despite the changes it made to its approach to repairs following our special investigation. It should consider whether it needs to make further changes considering its learning from this complaint.
    2. Ensures its processes provide sufficient oversight of repairs allocated to contractors. It should satisfy itself that its processes set out what it will do if repairs are not completed within the timescales set out in its Repairs Policy.
  4. A copy of the review should be sent to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is advised to review the language used to set out its decision in its complaint responses.