Birmingham City Council (202430972)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430972

Birmingham City Council

1 October 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

The complaint is about:
1. The information the landlord provided about the resident’s tenancy.
2. The suitability of the property the landlord offered to the resident.

Background

In September 2014 the resident signed an introductory tenancy with the landlord for a property. In 2015 the landlord informed the resident her tenancy had become secure.
The property is a 3 bedroom house and is owned by a private landlord who leased the property to the landlord. The resident lives in the property with her 3 children.
The resident said the landlord made her aware in 2023 it had completed the wrong tenancy agreement. The landlord offered the resident a 5 year assured shorthold tenancy for the property, however, the resident did not agree to this. In September 2024 the landlord offered the resident a secure tenancy in another property.
On 14 January 2025 the resident formally complained to the landlord. She said the landlord made an error in giving her a secure tenancy agreement for her initial home. She was unhappy with the property it offered in September 2024 and said the property was far from her original home, smaller, and was in a poor condition. She said the landlord completed decorative work and installed carpets, however, asbestos was present in the property.
On 3 February 2025 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint as it considered the property it offered was suitable for the resident’s household composition. In addition it said it completed repairs to the property and had not received a report from the resident about asbestos. It recommended the resident contacted its repairs service to submit a report.
On 2 May 2025 the landlord provided a second stage 1 response to the complaint. It said the property it offered the resident was suitable. It said it arranged for an officer to visit the property in relation to the reported asbestos. The landlord confirmed its decision to issue the resident with a secure tenancy in 2015 was an error. It upheld the complaint concerning the tenancy on this basis and agreed to review compensation in recognition of its error.
On 12 May 2025 the resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had since offered her £1000 compensation and agreed to pay removal costs. The resident asked whether the landlord would compensate her the improvements she had made to her original home, which she continued to occupy. She was also unhappy the landlord expected 2 of her children to share a bedroom in the property it offered, as they did not have to do so in the original property. She asked the landlord whether it would fund alterations to the new property so it would have a fourth bedroom.
On 30 May 2025 the landlord provided its final response to the complaint. The landlord said the property it offered was suitable. It said it had since inspected the property and found it was ready for occupation. It confirmed its offer of £1000 compensation was recognition of its failure to provide the resident the correct tenancy agreement in 2014.

Assessment and findings

The information the landlord provided about the resident’s tenancy

The resident’s tenancy in her original home began in September 2014. The tenancy was an introductory tenancy. The agreement stated the earliest date the tenancy would become a secure tenancy, unless extended by law, was 8 September 2015. On 4 November 2015 the landlord wrote to the resident and said her tenancy had become secure.
The resident has informed us the landlord made her aware in 2023, the property was part of a lease and repair scheme. We have not been able to find details about the terms of this scheme. However, the evidence confirms the scheme ran for 10 years andthe landlord acquired the property through a lease agreement with a private landlord. Therefore, the landlord does not have ownership of the property. Given this, it is reasonable for us to take a view the lease and repair scheme was a scheme similar to the private sector leasing scheme, where a property is leased to the council for it to houseapplicants.
After the landlord notified the resident the property was part of the lease and repair scheme, it confirmed she had the option to stay in the property with a 5 year fixed term tenancy. The resident informed us she declined this offer. The landlord agreed to find her another property.
In or around September 2024 the landlord made a direct offer of a property to the resident. The resident signed the tenancy agreement for the property offered on 27 September 2024.
On 14 January 2025 the resident complained to the landlord. She said the landlord offered her a secure tenancy for the former property in error. The resident stated she would not have signed the tenancy if the landlord made her aware it was being let under the lease and repair scheme.
On 2 February 2025 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. The response did not address the resident’s complaint concerning the former tenancy.
The landlord’s failure to address the complaint in its initial stage 1 response, dated 2 February 2025, was a shortcoming. The landlord missed the opportunity to address the matter earlier in its complaints process.
Following receipt of the landlord’s response the resident approached us. She did not submit an escalation request to the landlord. We contacted the landlord and requested it provide the resident with another stage 1 response, incorporating its response to this element of the complaint.
On 2 May 2025 the landlord provided its second stage 1 response. It stated its records showed the original tenancy was a flexible tenancy for a period of 9 years, which ended on 16 April 2023. It said this information was on the tenancy agreement the resident had signed. The landlord acknowledged it sent the resident a letter in 2015 which stated the tenancy had become secure. It confirmed this was an error. The landlord apologised for the confusion and uncertainty caused. The landlord said the resident signed a notice to quit for the original property, which had an end date of 16 October 2024. It said as the resident’s leasehold ended, it offered an alternative property. The landlord upheld the complaint on the basis it had given the resident the incorrect tenancy agreement in 2014. It agreed to assess compensation for the distress and inconvenience as a result of its error.
The landlord’s second stage 1 response acknowledged its error in providing the resident with the incorrect tenancy for the original property. However, there were statements within the response that were not supported by the evidence. Specifically, the landlord said the resident’s tenancy agreement for the property stated it was a flexible tenancy of 9 years. This was inaccurate, as the tenancy agreement the resident signed clearly indicated it was not a flexible tenancy, but an introductory tenancy. In addition, the landlord referred to the agreement as ‘your lease’. This was misleading as the resident did not have a lease for the property. It was the landlord who had the lease for the property with the private landlord.
The landlord’s agreement to consider compensation in recognition of the impact of its error was appropriate. The impact of the landlord’s error was that the resident was only made aware after 9 years that she did not have a secure tenancy. The landlord had previously indicated otherwise in its correspondence to her in 2015.
On 12 May 2025 the resident escalated her complaint. She disputed the landlord’s statement that the original tenancy stated it was a flexible tenancy. The resident also asked the landlord whether it would compensate her for improvements she made to the original property.
On 30 May 2025 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It acknowledged its initial stage 1 response had not fully addressed the resident’s complaint however, that the decision it reached in the second stage 1 response was reasonable. The landlord said it recognised the investment the resident had made in the former property. It said to address its error, it offered the resident a property which it considered to be a direct match. In addition, the landlord offered the resident £1000 in recognition of its failure and the impact of this on her.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
Overall the landlord recognised it made an error which negatively impacted the resident. The evidence demonstrates the landlord offered the following to put things right for the resident:
1. The option for the resident to remain in the former property with a fixed term tenancy.
2. The offer of a secure tenancy in a like for like property the landlord owned. This included the agreement to arrange removals for the resident’s belongings from the former property.
3. £1000 compensation.
The evidence demonstrates that as a result of the landlord’s error, the resident incorrectly believed she had a secure tenancy for several years due to the correspondence the landlord sent in 2015. The resident stated she intended to purchase her former property under the Right to Buy Scheme, as would be the right of a secure tenant. However, there is no evidence the resident submitted an application to purchase the property before the landlord made her aware it had given her the wrong tenancy agreement.
The landlord was unable to restore the resident to the position she would have been in but for its failure. This is because it did not own the property and therefore could not offer the resident a secure tenancy for the original property. However, the resolutions the landlord offered gave the resident the option of remaining in the property for a fixed term or a move to another property with a secure tenancy.
The evidence shows the landlord also offered the resident compensation. In the circumstances this was reasonable for it to do as the resident experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s error. We have assessed the landlord’s offer of £1000 compensation against our remedies guidance. We have found the amount offered is in the region of that which we would offer in cases where a failure has had a significant impact on the resident.
Taken together we find the landlord’s offer fair and reasonable to put things right. It’s offer of redress was proportionate to the level of failings we identified on our investigation. The landlord provided the resident the option to remain in the property under a fixed term tenancy or an alternative property with a secure tenancy based on the resident’s household need and its allocation policy.
These remedies provided a degree of choice to the resident, which allowed her to decide the remedy which best suited her circumstances. In addition the landlord offered £1000 compensation in recognition of the impact of its error. The combination of the remedies the landlord proposed demonstrate the landlord recognised the impact its failure had on the resident and sought to provide practical and financial redress. This results in a finding of reasonable redress.

The suitability of the property the landlord offered to the resident

On 6 June 2024 the landlord confirmed to the resident it had awarded her the highest band for a transfer. Having the highest band represents an applicant having the most urgent housing need. It noted the resident was eligible to bid on 3 bedroom properties on its choice based letting scheme. The landlord also agreed to source a property to offer as a direct nomination. A direct nomination is where a local authority finds and offers a suitable property directly to an applicant on their housing register, rather than requiring them to bid on advertised properties through a choice-based lettings system.
In or around September 2024 the landlord made a direct offer of a property to the resident. The property was a 3 bedroom house. The resident signed the tenancy agreement for the property on 27 September 2024. The tenancy started on 7 October 2024. The landlord agreed to paint the property and install carpets.
On 14 January 2025 the resident complained to the landlord. She said the landlord forced her into accepting the property before she had the opportunity to view it. She said her relative had identified asbestos in the property, however, the landlord had not completed any work to address this. The resident said the landlord made her aware on 11 January 2025 the property was ready for occupation. However, when she visited the property on 14 January 2025 she found it to be in a worse condition than when she previously viewed it.
The resident explained she had a child who had a disability and the new property was smaller than her former home. She said the landlord informed her at the new property 2 of the children would need to share a room. The resident disagreed with the practicalities of the situations and said there was a 9 year age gap between the children who did not previously share a room in the former property. She questioned why they would subsequently have to share because of what she saw as being the landlord’s error.
On 3 February 2025 the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident. It said as of 7 January 2025, it completed the repairs to the property. This included the decoration work and carpet installation. The landlord said it had not received a repair order in relation to asbestos and recommended the resident contacted its repair service. The landlord also said the property was suitable for the resident and her family in accordance with its allocations policy and bedroom standards.
Analysis of the landlord’s stage 1 response shows it explained the rationale on the basis it had offered the property and explained this was in accordance with its allocations policy. The landlord’s allocation scheme states a 3 bedroom property will be allocated to a couple who are married, have a civil partnership or who are cohabiting, or an adult or child aged 16 years or more, with any 2 of the following:
1. An adult or child aged 21 years or more.
2. A pair of adolescents aged 11-16 years of the same gender.
3. A pair of children aged 0-10years regardless of gender.
4. An adolescent aged 11-20 years paired with a child aged 0-10 years of the same gender.
5. An unpaired adolescent aged 11-20 years.
6. An unpaired child aged 0-10 years.
7. An adult or child where it would be detrimental to their mental health if they shared a room or an adult or child aged 21 years or more.
At the time the landlord made the offer of the property to the resident, the resident’s 3 children’s ages ranged from 10-20 years. 2 of the resident children were the same gender. Based on the landlord’s allocation scheme, the resident’s entitlement was for a 3 bedroom property.
The resident said the property the landlord offered was smaller than the previous property. She said the previous property had a double living room and 3 bedrooms.
The landlord stated in its offer it would provide a like for like property. The evidence shows the landlord’s property offer was reasonable because as a 3 bedroom property, it met the same criteria as the resident’s previous home. Furthermore, the evidence shows the landlord made the resident aware of her bedroom entitlement on 6 June 2024. The resident did not challenge the decision at the time.
In regard to other matters raised by the resident, the evidence shows the landlord’s initial stage 1 response did not appropriately address the resident’s concern about the presence of asbestos in the property. While the landlord confirmed it completed the decorative work and installed the carpet as agreed, its response regarding the asbestos was not resolution focused.
The resident stated the landlord completed an inspection of the property in March 2024 and advised her ‘no cracks no asbestos’. We have no record of this inspection within the evidence provided. Nevertheless, for transparency and reassurance, in addition to asking the resident to report any concerns about the presence of asbestos to its repair team, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to confirm the results of its previous inspection in its response to demonstrate the action it had taken to look into the resident’s concerns.
In the landlord’s second stage 1 response, dated 5 May 2024, it appropriately reiterated the work it completed and also agreed to arrange a visit to the property.
The evidence demonstrates the landlord arranged an inspection of the property following its response dated 5 May 2024. The landlord’s visit to the property was necessary in light of the resident’s concerns about asbestos and her view the property was not ready for occupation. The inspection gave the landlord the opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns so it could clarify its position about the condition of the property. However, due to the limitations of its first stage 1 response, the landlord missed the opportunity to take this step at an earlier stage.
On 12 May 2025 the resident escalated her complaint. She said one of her daughters had limited mobility and that she raised this with the landlord when it offered her the property. The resident said the former property had 3 bedrooms and 2 living rooms and questioned whether the landlord would therefore, reconfigure the property it offered so there was an extra bedroom for her daughter, who was now 21 years of age.
On 30 May 2025 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. The landlord said it inspected the property and found it was ready for occupation, with no outstanding repairs that would prevent the resident from moving in. The landlord said when it offered the property, it deemed it suitable based on the resident’s assessed need at the time. It confirmed the resident’s request for reconfiguration of the property to enable a fourth bedroom was not feasible.
Overall the evidence shows the property offered to the resident, was done so in accordance with the landlord’s allocations scheme. The landlord’s communication was not as good as it could have been because it did not clarify the findings about asbestos from this visit as part of its initial complaint response. The landlord’s second stage 1 response was appropriate as arranged another inspection to assess whether the property was suitable for occupation. The subsequent inspection informed its stage 2 response. On this basis, there were no failings by the landlord in response to the resident’s complaint about the suitability of the property it offered. This leads to a determination of no maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to the complaint about information it provided about the resident’s tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint about the suitability of the property it offered.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord arrange the payment of the £1000 it offered the resident in its response to the complaint if it has not already made the payment.