Birmingham City Council (202409634)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202409634 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Birmingham City Council |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
26 March 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with his wife and 2 disabled children. The landlord was aware during the complaints process that 1 child has autism, and the other adult child uses a wheelchair and walking frame. From February 2023 the resident reported repairs required to fix leaks from the roof and guttering that he said were causing damp and mould issues throughout the property.
What the complaint is about
- The landlord’s response to:
- The resident’s reports of leaks from the roof and guttering and associated damp and mould in the property.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof and guttering and associated damp and mould in the property.
- There was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord failed to find a lasting remedy to the leaks from the roof and the associated damp and mould in the property. The landlord completed some repairs within its repairs policy timescale. However, some repairs were not completed within the landlord’s repairs policy timescale. The landlord’s failings caused detriment to the resident that was aggravated due to his household vulnerabilities, which the landlord was aware of.
- We saw no evidence that the landlord completed an appropriate risk assessment so that it could prioritise the repairs considering the resident’s household vulnerabilities. We also saw no evidence of a diagnostic inspection by a suitably qualified person. We saw no evidence that the landlord used appropriate equipment to identify the root cause(s) of the leaks, damp and mould issues in the property.
- The landlord’s poor records management and communication would not have helped the landlord to follow up and update the resident appropriately. The resident had to repeatedly chase up the landlord for it to complete the repairs which caused him avoidable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. It is unclear that the landlord has found a lasting solution to the leaks, damp and mould issues. This led to our maladministration finding.
Complaint handling
- The landlord delayed its acknowledgements at each complaint stage leading to unnecessary delay in its internal complaints process contrary to its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). We saw no evidence it learnt from the complaint and its late remedy should have been offered during its complaints process rather than over a year later. This led to our maladministration finding.
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:
|
No later than 23 April 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,600 (inclusive of the £1,500 previously offered) made up as follows:
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 the total figure any payments it has already paid. |
No later than 23 April 2026 |
|
2 |
Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the damp and mould. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person with expertise to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:
|
No later than 22 April 2026 |
|
3 |
Senior management review order The landlord must complete a senior management review of this case to identify why the failings have occurred and to consider learning that can be used to prevent similar failings from happening. The landlord must send a copy of its review outcomes and action plan to the resident and to us within this timeframe.
|
No later than 07 May 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
12 March 2024 |
The resident complained to the landlord. He said he had the damp and mould for 7-8 years. He said the landlord had scaffolding erected the previous week, but no one had done any work. He complained about the landlord’s lack of communication saying he called several times, but no one called him back. He said the landlord did not investigate the cause of the damp and mould but just painted over it. As a remedy, the resident requested the landlord to fix the property so the damp and mould would not return. |
|
8 April 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that its contractor attended the property and completed repairs to repair and replace broken slates, redress lead flashings and seal them and to clear the guttering. It said that no jobs were outstanding. |
|
8 April 2024 |
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and requested that the landlord escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process. He asked why the scaffolding was still up without work being completed. |
|
7 June 2024 |
The landlord issued its final complaint response. It was satisfied that its contractor had completed the required repairs to the roof. This included stripping out and replacing the broken slates, clearing the guttering and completing chimney repairs. It its contractor was scheduled to take down scaffolding on 18 March 2024, but it had to reschedule this to 6 June 2024 due to lack of access. It partially upheld the complaint as it said that the resident had raised leaks, damp and mould issues from 2019. It said it found that whilst it had completed repairs, it missed appointments. It said on one occasion it had not allocated sufficient time to complete internal work to remove the mould in the property. It said its contractor would be inspecting the property and would treat any damp and mould. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred his complaint to us on 14 June 2024. As a remedy the resident wanted the landlord to fix the property so that the damp and mould issues would not return. |
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 response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof and guttering and associated damp and mould in the property |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we did not investigate
- The resident raised previous complaints with the landlord in 2021, 2022 and in 2023 that he did not refer to us to investigate. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints that are referred to us normally more than 12 months from the date of the final response. In this case, the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure on 07 December 2021 and 01 June 2023. However, they did not refer the complaint to us until after 12 months on 14 June 2024. We have not seen any reasons which would prevent the complaint from being referred to us sooner. Therefore, we will not investigate the earlier complaints about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the leaks, damp and mould and operative behaviour.
- The resident was concerned about the impact of the damp and mould on him and his family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. This is because courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide the overall distress and inconvenience and if a landlord should pay compensation for this.
What we did investigate
- We have investigated the period from February 2023 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 7 June 2024. The landlord raised several repairs between 2 February 2023 to 1 March 2023 to repair loose brickwork to the rear elevation of the property and to repair the roof and guttering. The resident told the landlord that the leak was causing black mould in his autistic son’s bedroom. He said this was causing him difficulties in managing his son’s disability. These difficulties were also noted by the call handler on 13 April 2023.
- The landlord needed to ensure that it risk assessed the situation given the household vulnerabilities. However, we have seen no risk assessment, which was inappropriate.
- The landlord completed some, but not all, of the repairs within its repairs policy and damp and mould policy timescale of 30 days. During the internal complaints process the repair records show that the landlord raised multiple repairs for the same issues, including recalls. This included repairs for the leaks from the roof to repair and replace roof slates, complete pointing work, clear the gutters, and to apply mould wash and paint internally. This evidenced a recurrent issue that the landlord needed to find a lasting solution to.
- We can see that the landlord organised inspections on 26 April 2023, one between 15 January 2024 to 27 February 2024 and one on 10 June 2024. However, the landlord’s records are unclear whether its contractor completed the inspections. Its repairs policy refers to its repairs partner undertaking inspections. We have seen no inspection reports with photographs that diagnose the root cause of the leaks, damp and mould evidencing poor record keeping practices.
- We have also seen no evidence that the inspections involved the use of appropriate diagnostic equipment. We cannot see that the landlord properly followed up and post-inspected the work, which was particularly important given the recurrent issues. This was inappropriate. While we appreciate that a first-time fix is not always achievable, the volume of repairs indicates the landlord did not appropriately diagnose and find a permanent solution. We saw no evidence that the landlord communicated outcomes with the resident which was inappropriate.
- The resident reported during the internal complaints process that the repairs were not completed properly or not at all. He alleged that the landlord’s contractor had completed repairs on a different roof rather than his roof. As we rely on documentary evidence and the evidence does not show the resident’s property specifically, we cannot confirm that the earlier repairs were completed on the correct roof. However, we can see that the landlord investigated the resident’s report which was appropriate to satisfy itself that repairs were completed to the correct roof.
- We can see that the resident raised issues with the landlord’s contractor organising scaffolding. The landlord was aware of the need for scaffolding from at least 22 November 2022. However, the landlord’s repair records show that appointments had to be rebooked on several occasions between 13 March 2023 and 28 February 2024 due to the need for scaffolding. On one occasion, when the resident chased the landlord on 13 April 2023 to say work was outstanding, the landlord’s repair records noted that the job was abandoned. It noted that this was because there was nowhere for the scaffolding contractor to park the wagon. The landlord needed to inform its contractor of the need for scaffolding when raising works orders to prevent unnecessary delay that would cause further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
- Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord’s contractor removed mould throughout the property on 10 – 12 June 2024. It raised works order on 3 September 2024 to install a bathroom extractor fan and 12 November 2024 also for the bathroom extractor fan. It raised a works order on 26 September 2024 to repair loose roof tiles.
- The landlord marked the 3 September 2024 order for a bathroom extractor as completed on 11 September 2024. However, the landlord’s records are unclear whether the second extractor fan works order of 12 November 2024 went ahead as the landlord has not recorded the completion date. It is also unclear from the landlord’s records whether this was a repair or replacement extractor fan. The order of 26 September 2024 for the roof tiles was marked as completed the same date. The resident reported to us on 12 March 2026 that repairs are still outstanding. It is therefore unclear that the landlord has found a lasting remedy to the leaks from the roof and guttering and the associated damp and mould issues in the property.
- When we find failings, we consider what the landlord has done to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. In this case the landlord partially upheld the complaint in its final complaint response. It found missed appointments and that it failed to allocate sufficient time on one occasion. It did not consider any compensation in line with its compensation policy which allowed it to award compensation generally up to £250 for a failure or delay in completing a repair.
- Since then, the landlord wrote again to the resident on 20 October 2025. It apologised for its failure to address the repairs in a timely manner. It offered £1,500 in compensation in recognition of the resident’s distress and inconvenience which was a reasonable amount. We expect landlords to provide a remedy during the internal complaints process to put things right. This offer was made over a year after the end of the internal complaints process which was inappropriate. The offer was higher than the landlord’s compensation policy and in line with our remedies guidance where we would find severe maladministration.
- Though the landlord completed some repairs to the roof, guttering and a mould treatment, it is unclear that it has found a lasting solution. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof and guttering and associated damp and mould in the property.
- We have ordered the landlord to pay the £1,500 it has offered (if it has not already done so). We have ordered the landlord for a suitably qualified person to complete an inspection of the property using appropriate equipment to identify any remaining issues that would cause leaks, damp and mould in the property. It should also ensure that the bathroom extractor fan is working. We have also ordered the landlord to complete a senior management review of the case so it can identify learning to help it improve its response to leaks, damp and mould issues.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to the associated complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The resident raised his complaint on 12 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 March 2024 which was 9 working days after the resident made his complaint. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code for an acknowledgement to be sent which was inappropriate, though the delay was not excessive. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 8 April 2024. This was within 9 working days from its acknowledgement, which was appropriate.
- The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code requires it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code require a response at stage 1 to be issued within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. It requires a response to be issued at stage 2 within 20 working days of its acknowledgement.
- The resident requested the landlord to escalate his complaint on 8 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 16 May 2024. This was 27 working days after the resident’s escalation request which was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. This was inappropriate. It unnecessarily extended the complaints process causing inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident who had to chase up the landlord.
- The landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 June 2024. This was within 14 working days of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint acknowledgement. This would have been reasonable. However, the delayed acknowledgements meant the landlord’s overall complaint handling was unreasonably delayed. The landlord issued a further complaint response on 20 October 2025 as above, over a year later, offering compensation that it needed to consider during the internal complaints process. This was inappropriate.
- The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation to recognise the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s delayed complaint handling, a lack of learning from the complaint and its delayed remedy.
Learning
- We have seen no evidence that the landlord has considered any learning from the resident’s complaint. Complaints provide landlords with an opportunity to consider any learning in line with the Code. The landlord could benefit from reviewing our resources for repairs and maintenance issues and damp and mould issues in our Centre for Learning. It may want to review our relevant Spotlight reports on these issues, available on our website.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- We found evidence of poor record keeping practices during this investigation. This would have not helped the landlord to keep track of the repairs to fix the leaks and damp and mould in the property. The landlord may wish to review its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management (if it has not already done so) against our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) to improve its record keeping practices.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication with the resident was generally more reactive than proactive. Given the resident’s continued reports of the repairs not being completed satisfactorily or at all, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to agree some timely updates.