Birmingham City Council (202329205)

Decision
Case ID	202329205
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Birmingham City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	9 January 2026

Background

The resident complained to the landlord as she was unhappy with how it handled her repair requests and reports of damp and mould. She also complained about how it dealt with her reports of a pest infestation.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs.
2. Reports of damp and mould.
3. Reports of a pest infestation.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The landlord did not complete repairs within its policy timeframe.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

It took the landlord 7 months to carry out a damp and mould inspection from when it was first reported by the resident. During this time the resident reported the situation was worsening.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report of an infestation and signposted her to the correct team.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord did not respond to the complaint within its policy timeframe. While failings were identified, it did take steps to put things right. In addition, it failed to confirm what action it would be taking next to resolve the outstanding issues.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £900 compensation made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its handling of repairs. The landlord should also pay the resident £400 compensation that it offered on 19 December 2025 for its handling of the repairs. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of reports of damp and mould. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from this total any compensation payments it has already made to the resident.	No later than 06 February 2026
3	Review Order The landlord should review how it deals with no access appointments. It should consider: What steps it can take to support residents when it is repeatedly unable to gain access to a property to carry out repairs. What steps it should take to ensure that it is not prevented from complying with its obligations under an occupancy agreement as a result of no access. The landlord should provide evidence of this review by the due date.	No later than 06 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 July 2023	The resident reported damp and mould in the hallway, landing and stairs.
3 August 2023	The landlord visited the property to treat the damp and mould. It could not do this as it found a leak from the property above.
3 August 2023	The resident reported an issue with the front door.
8 August 2023	The landlord visited the property to carry out the door repair. This was not completed at the resident’s request.
8 August 2023	The resident reported damp and mould in the hallway, stairs and various rooms.
9 August 2023	The resident reported an issue with the bathroom light.
14 August 2023	The landlord visited the property to repair the bathroom light. It could not gain access and left a contact card to rearrange.
14 August 2023	The landlord raised a repair for the leak emanating from the property above.
17 August 2023	The leak in the property above was repaired.
5 September 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: There was mould on the walls and ceilings of the hallway, bedrooms and living room. There was water dripping into the porch. There were insects in the kitchen. The repair to the door and light had not been completed. Repair appointments were being booked but the landlord was not confirming these with her.
15 September 2023	The landlord visited the property to treat the mould. It said it could not gain access as no one was in.
20 September 2023	The resident reported the front door issue again and said the porch light was not working.
25 September 2023	The resident reported further problems to the landlord. She said: The mould was spreading across the walls and ceilings. The damp and mould were making her unwell. Repair appointments were being marked as ‘no access’ when she was in.
28 September 2023	The landlord repaired the porch light.
16 October 2023	The resident asked the landlord if she could escalate her complaint to stage 2. This was due to the length of time that had passed, and that her concerns had yet to be resolved.
24 October 2023	The resident asked if the complaint could be escalated to stage 2 again. She repeated her complaints and said the mould was also spreading in the property.
25 October 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: The repairs had been attended to within their target dates or there had been no access. Its contractor had not been able to contact the resident by phone, and this was why some repairs had been cancelled. It had no record of the resident reporting a pest infestation. It told the resident it was her responsibility to deal with pests in the home and provided the contact information for Environmental Services.
26 October 2023	The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2. She reiterated her previous concerns and added that: The door had still not been fixed. The mould had been painted over but had come back and was spreading further. She had reported the infestation 3 times. Repair appointments were continuing to be made without arranging them with her.
29 October 2023	The resident told the landlord there was damp and mould on the bedroom wall.
31 October 2023	The landlord rehung the front door and adjusted the lock.
26 November 2023	The resident asked for her complaint to escalated again.
14 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: The door repair had been completed on 31 October 2023. A damp and mould inspection was attempted on 6 and 16 October 2023 but there was no access to the property. The resident should contact the repairs centre if damp and mould stayed an issue. The contractor could not contact the resident by phone. This had made it difficult to arrange appointments. It could find no reports of a pest infestation being made to Environmental Services. It provided the contact information again and told the resident to contact them.
January & February 2024	The landlord emailed the resident to arrange a damp and mould inspection. This was arranged for 19 February 2024.
19 December 2025	Following contact from us the landlord offered the resident £500 compensation. This was made up of: £100 for complaint handling failures. £300 for service failures attributed to repairs. £100 for the distress and inconvenience experienced whilst trying to resolve the repair issues.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us on 19 November 2023 about her complaint. On 23 January 2024 the resident asked us to investigate her complaint as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repairs
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s policy says routine repairs should be completed within 30 days of being reported and urgent repairs within 1, 3 or 7 days depending on the repair.
The resident reported the front door was swollen and could not be opened on 3 August 2023. The landlord attended the property on 8 August 2023 but a repair was not carried out. The landlord explained in its complaint response this was at the resident’s request as she was unhappy with the proposed repair. The resident said she would rebook the repair. While the repair was not completed on this date, we are satisfied that the landlord attended in accordance with its policy timeframe.
The resident raised further issues with the door on 20 September 2023. The door was rehung and the lock adjusted on 31 October 2023. The landlord categorised this as a routine repair. As such there was a delay of 12 days. We have seen no reason for this delay, and the evidence does not suggest it was unavoidable. When it investigated the complaint, the landlord should have reasonably identified this delay and taken steps to put things right. It is a failing it did not do this.
The resident reported an issue with the hallway light switch on 9 August 2023. The landlord categorised this as a 3-day repair, and attended in accordance with its policy. However, it could not gain access to the property, and the repair job was cancelled. It is unclear whether the appointment was confirmed with the resident in advance. However, we have seen no further follow up about this repair or evidence to show it was completed. This was not reasonable as once the landlord had been told about the repair it was required to make sure that it was completed.
The resident raised an issue with the porch light on 20 September 2023. The landlord competed the repair on 28 September 2023. Again, this was categorised as a 3-day repair, but the landlord attended 5 days outside of the allocated timeframe. The landlord acknowledged this delay and apologised for it in its complaint response. As this was only a slight delay to the repair the landlord’s apology in its complaint response was proportionate.
Throughout her complaint, the resident expressed concern about how the landlord arranged the repair appointments. In response, the landlord advised that its contractor was having difficulty contacting the resident to arrange appointments. It also said it arranged some emergency appointments itself and explained residents are expected to provide access for it to carry out repairs. While we recognise the landlord said it had difficulties contacting the resident we have not seen any evidence that it took steps to try to address this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought clarification around communication preferences, confirmed it held the correct details and perhaps enquire about the most convenient times of day to contact the resident via phone. This was a missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns and to find a solution to the problem it had been experiencing.
The resident also complained the repair appointments were marked as no access when she was at home. We have not seen that the landlord investigated this or tried to establish why the repair appointments were repeatedly marked as no access. This was another missed opportunity for the landlord find out what was going wrong. It was not reasonable it did not do this and so was unable to take any further actions to gain access to the property or support the resident. The landlord should consider our Spotlight report on repairing trust when it is faced with no access to a property, and what action it can take to find pragmatic solutions.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs was not appropriate. The landlord appropriately acknowledged some of the delays during the complaints process – but missed an opportunity to identify them all. While the delays experienced were relatively minor, the landlord did not provide any explanations for these, and we have seen nothing to suggest that they were unavoidable.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £400 after she brought the complaint to us. This was made up of £300 for the service failures attributed to the repairs and £100 for the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. As this was offered outside of the landlord’s complaint procedure, we cannot consider that there was reasonable redress for this complaint. The landlord had the opportunity to consider the detriment to the resident during the complaints process and to take steps to put things right, but it failed to do so. It appears the offer was prompted following our involvement and this should not have been necessary.
We are satisfied that the amount offered by the landlord is appropriate and in line with our remedy guidance for the repair failings. However, we have ordered the landlord to pay a further £100 compensation for the delay in putting things right and for the failure to address the resident’s comments around the no access appointments. We have also ordered the landlord to review how it handles no access appointments.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord says in its self-assessment against our spotlight report on damp and mould that it will respond to reports of damp and mould inline with its repair policy. It goes on to say it takes all reports of damp and mould seriously.
The resident reported damp and mould on the hallway wall on 26 July 2023. The landlord visited the property within its policy timeframe on 3 August 2023 but did not carry out any work as it found a water leak coming from above the property. While the landlord explained in its complaint response it could not carry out a damp treatment until the source of the leak was fixed, we have not seen any evidence that this was explained to the resident at the time. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident what actions it was going to take to fix the leak and when it would treat the damp and mould in her property. It was not appropriate it did not do this.
The landlord’s records show the leak repair for the above property was raised on 14 August 2023 and completed on 17 August 2023. Although the repair, once raised, was completed within the landlord’s policy timeframe we have seen no reason for the 11-day delay in raising the repair. The reason for the time taken to complete the repair should reasonably have been explained to the resident during the complaints process given that her property was being affected. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord.
The resident raised further reports of mould on 8 August 2023. The landlord tried to attend the property on 14 August and 15 September 2023, which was reasonable. However, it could not gain access. The reason for this – and whether the resident was made aware of the attendance – is unclear. However, the landlord then cancelled this job. This was inappropriate. The landlord had received a report of damp and mould within the property and had an obligation to investigate this. While attendance had been attempted, it is unclear why further efforts were not made to contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient time for the property to be inspected.
The resident told the landlord on 22 September 2023 there was mould throughout the property. The landlord appropriately attempted to inspect the property on 6 and 16 October 2023 but was unable to gain access as the resident was not home. Again it is unclear whether these appointments had been confirmed with the resident. Given the failed attendances in the previous 2 months, and the resident’s concern that the situation was worsening, it is unclear why further efforts to agree a mutually convenient time and date were not made. It is also noted that a further appointment was not scheduled, and this was inappropriate.
After it had issued the stage 2 complaint response the landlord contacted the resident on 19 January 2024 to arrange a damp and mould inspection. This went ahead successfully and it is noted that some recommendations were made for the landlord to consider further. Therefore, while the landlord did successfully inspect the property, this was 7 months after the resident’s initial report. The delay in carrying out the inspection is particularly concerning as the resident reported the issue multiple times and advised the situation was worsening. While the landlord did take steps to try to inspect the property, we are not satisfied that it acted in a manner that was reasonable and that some of the issues around accessing the property could reasonably have been avoided if it had engaged with the resident in a more proactive manner.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s policy says it expects residents to take “reasonable steps” to keep the property free from rats, mice and other pests. Its conditions of tenancy booklet states residents must tell Environmental Services if a property becomes infested with rats and that it will also provide advice and guidance on other pests.
The resident made the landlord aware of the pest infestation in her complaint on 5 September 2023. The resident said in her complaint escalation she had reported the issue 3 times. In both of its complaint responses the landlord said it could find no record of a report being made to Environmental Services. We have seen evidence that the landlord enquired with Environmental Services and was informed no report had been made from the resident’s property. While we do not dispute what the resident says, there is no evidence that a report was made and that the landlord failed to respond. In addition, we have seen the landlord took appropriate steps to find out if a report had been made given the resident’s concerns.
In each of the complaint responses the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to Environmental Services and reminded the resident of her responsibilities to report any pest issues. This was reasonable by the landlord as it was expected the resident report the matter to Environmental Services.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

At the time of the complaint the timescales in the landlord’s policy were not compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It is noted the landlord’s policy is now compliant with the code.
The landlord did not follow its complaints policy for the following reasons:
1. It should have issued its stage 1 response within 15 days. It took 51 days.
2. It should have issued its stage 2 response within 20 days, but it took 49 days.
In each of its complaint responses the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in its response. However, it took no further steps to put matters right. Given the extent of the delays and that the resident was caused inconvenience as a result of chasing the landlord, it should reasonably have considered compensating her. It was a failing that it did not.
After contact from us the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its compliant handling. It did not explain if this was for the delayed responses or if it had identified further complaint handling failure. Given the failings we have found, we do not consider that this was a proportionate award in the circumstances.
The landlord also failed to use the complaints process as an opportunity to demonstrate that it was committed to putting things right. It did not:
1. Arrange to inspect the property for damp and mould. It was aware that the property had yet to be inspected for damp and mould, but put the onus on the resident to schedule an appointment. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for it to confirm that it would contact her and that it would deal with any remedial works identified from the inspection in accordance with its policy. We acknowledge the landlord did eventually arrange a damp and mould inspection but this was after the complaints process had finished.
2. Take steps to put right the inconvenience that had been caused by its handling of the repairs. While it acknowledged the delays, it did not offer compensation until December 2025.

Learning

The landlord should review how it deals with no access appointments. In doing so, it should consider:
1. What steps it can take to support residents when it is repeatedly unable to gain access to a property to carry out repairs.
2. What steps it should take to ensure that it is not prevented from complying with its obligations under an occupancy agreement as a result of no access.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s recording keeping was appropriate and allowed us to fully investigate the issues raised.

Communication

The landlord referred to difficulty it had in contacting the resident by phone. This is noted. However, it is also noted that the landlord was able to communicate with the resident via email. As such, we recommend that the landlord discusses communication preferences with the resident to reduce the risk of difficulty gaining contact.