We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Birmingham City Council (202416669)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416669

Birmingham City Council

15 April 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 handling of multiple leaks into the property and the resulting damage.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an introductory tenant of a 2-bedroom flat. She lives with her child.
  2. The resident reported 3 leaks into her property between 22 April 2024 and 7 June 2024. On 8 June 2024 she raised a complaint with the landlord. She stated that she could not put electrical items in the kitchen because the leak would damage them. This included having no fridge freezer or cooker. She stated there was damp and mould from the leak despite her having recently painted the property.
  3. On 26 June 2024 the landlord noted that there was an uncontained leak relating to a stop tap. It said that the water company needed to come and fix this. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 4 July 2024. It said that it needed an appointment with the water company to fix the leak and it would contact the resident when it had this. It noted that it believed the earlier reported leaks were due to the behaviour of the neighbour above.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on the same day. She was unhappy with how the landlord was handling the complaint. She said no one had looked at her light fixtures and she was concerned there was water in them. She advised that no work had been done to her kitchen and there were holes which water was leaking from. She stated that there was mould all over her bathroom ceiling and wanted to know how the landlord would resolve this. The resident said the impact of the leaks was affecting both her and her daughter’s wellbeing. She said she felt worried that the leaks would happen again.
  5. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 12 July 2024. It said that it had taken appropriate action with her neighbour and that they had told the neighbour their behaviour which was causing the water leak was unacceptable. It said that the electrics were dry and safe to use. It said it had repaired the leak with the stop tap on 10 July 2024. It advised that its contractors were not responsible for the actions of others that were outside of its control. It said that it would not tolerate a repeat of the behaviour from her neighbour and would take appropriate action if needed.
  6. The resident has continued to report leaks to the landlord. She has advised the Ombudsman that the situation is ongoing. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with an update on 28 March 2025. It said that it had carried out works to the neighbour’s property above which it hoped would resolve the issue. It also advised that it had reached a settlement for £4162.56. The landlord said there have been no further reports of leaks since September 2024. The resident has said that there is significant damage from the leaks and there is a mice infestation due to the damp.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

  1. The landlord completed its internal complaints process on 12 July 2024. As per paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we would not usually consider complaints that have not been through the landlord’s complaints process. We have seen that the resident raised a further complaint about leaks which the landlord responded to at stage 1 on 27 September 2024. We have not seen evidence that this complaint went to stage 2 of the process, and as such this did not complete the landlord’s complaints process. The response addressed matters and events which occurred after the stage 2 response we are investigating. As we have not seen evidence that these matters completed the complaints process, we cannot consider these in the investigation.

The landlord’s handling of a leak and the resulting damage.

  1. The resident reported a leak into her property from above on 22 April 2024. The landlord attended on the same day and identified that bathing practices from a resident above, and a lack of silicone around the shower from a different flat above, were causing the leaks. The landlord responded appropriately by attending the leak, however it should have considered what actions it could take to ensure the leak did not happen again. This would include speaking with the neighbour above regarding their bathing practices to ensure these were not causing damage to the flat below. It would also include repairing the silicone seal or instructing the neighbour to do this if it was their responsibility. We have not seen evidence it did this.
  2. The resident reported damage to her kitchen ceiling due to a leak on 12 May 2024. The landlord attended but the resident had paid privately to have the ceiling repaired. The landlord responded appropriately in attending the property and it was reasonable for it to take no further action in relation to the damaged ceiling as the works had already been completed.
  3. On 7 June 2024 the resident reported a further leak. It said water was dripping through half the ceiling in the kitchen and through the bathroom ceiling. On 10 June 2024 the landlord stated that this was due to bathing practices from a flat above and another flat having no silicone around the shower. We understand from the landlord’s latest updates, that repairs have been carried out to the properties above. However, we have not seen specific evidence that the silicon around the shower has been fixed.
  4. The landlord said it had spoken to the resident who it believed was causing the leak through their behaviour, but this had not stopped the problem with water leaking into the flat below. It was appropriate that the landlord attended the leak, and that it had spoken to the neighbour. It also said it would request a supervisor to attend in order to tackle the behaviour further. Whilst we recognise that the leaks were distressing, the landlord was taking action to address the underlying cause.
  5. The landlord noted a new leak that was due to a broken stop tap on 26 June 2024. It fixed this on 10 July 2024. We recognise there was 14 days between the resident reporting the leak and the landlord fixing this. The landlord attended on the day the resident reported it. It is unclear from the evidence what had caused the leak but it identified that a stop tap needed to be repaired. The landlord noted it needed the water company to turn off the mains supply for the repair to be completed. As such repair it could not complete the repair immediately. We consider that the duration of time to fix the stop tap was reasonable, given the need for third party involvement.
  6. On 8 July 2024 a new leak was reported. The landlord noted that and engineer had reported that the leaks were due to the behaviour of the neighbour above. It is not clear from the reports, but we understand this to be a separate leak to that caused by the faulty stop tap. The landlord had noted on several occasions that the behaviour of the above resident was causing the leak. We understand they had spoken to the resident, and that tackling behaviours such as these can be challenging. While we consider that the landlord was taking some action, we have not seen evidence that the landlord considered the impact this was having on the resident. She had advised this was impacting both her and her child’s wellbeing. In her stage 1 complaint she had advised that she felt unsafe using her kitchen. She had also said that her child was reluctant to use the shower in the bathroom due to the leaks. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to do a risk assessment given there were vulnerabilities in the property.
  7. The resident raised damp and mould in both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint. We have not seen that the landlord took action to tackle the mould during the time the complaint was open. We would expect a landlord to investigate damp and mould, especially as the resident made the landlord aware of health conditions that could be exacerbated by mould. We understand that damp and mould removal was carried out in September 2024.
  8. In her escalation email the resident raised concerns about holes in her ceiling. The landlord has not provided evidence that it addressed this concern with the resident.
  9. The resident has raised concerns that she could not use her kitchen appliances. The landlord has advised that it checked the electrics and found them dry and safe to use. We recognise the resident has concerns that if another leak were to happen it could affect the electrics. However, we cannot make an assessment on possible outcomes. Should another leak happen, or should the resident have active concerns that her electrics are currently unsafe, she can raise this with the landlord.
  10. There were three sources of leaks in the property. The landlord dealt with one by speaking with the neighbour whose behaviour resulted in leaks. It dealt with another leak by repairing a stop tap. We have assessed the landlord’s response to these leaks to be appropriate. The evidence does not provide clarity on whether the third leak caused from broken silicone around another neighbour’s shower was repaired. The landlord also did not address the reports of damp and mould during the time the complaint was open. As such there was service failure in the landlord’s response to landlord’s response to multiple leaks in the property.
  11. The landlord has made us aware of a significant compensation package of £4152.56 to acknowledge the loss of facilities, distress and inconvenience and quantifiable loss due to the leaks at her property. This compensation covers the timing of this complaint, as it included a 70% rent reimbursement from 22 April 2024, when this resident first reported a leak. As such we will not order further compensation.
  12. We have made an order for the landlord to assess damp and mould in the property, if it has not already done so. If damp and mould is present, it should inform the resident of what actions it will take to tackle this, and the timescales for these actions. We are aware the landlord may have already taken this action, and if so it can submit evidence of this as compliance.
  13. The landlord should also provide an update as to whether it has carried out necessary repairs to the silicone, which was identified as one source of a leak.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord took 18 working days. This is slightly outside of timescales however the delay is not significant.
  2. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued within the 20 working days its complaints policy gives as a response timescale.
  3. The landlord’s complaint response did not address the reported damp and mould. We consider this to be a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because   the Housing Ombudsman Code states that a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint definition. Both complaints noted damp and mould as part of the definition,
  4. We are aware that the landlord offered compensation after the complaints process, and some of this amount was awarded for complaint handling. We will not award further compensation, however as the offer was made after the stage 2 response, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  5. We have made an order for the landlord to provide an apology for not addressing damp and mould in its complaints responses.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of a leak and the resulting damage.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

  1. The landlord is ordered to complete a damp and mould assessment. If it has already done this it can submit evidence of this to the Ombudsman as compliance with the order.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide an apology for not addressing damp and mould in the landlord’s complaints responses.

Recommendations.

  1. The resident has made us aware of ongoing issues due to the damage from the leaks. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns she has and if appropriate the landlord should open a new complaint.