Birmingham City Council (202406667)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in a building owned by the landlord. She reported a roof leak and said water ingress had damaged her bedroom ceiling. She complained that the landlord delayed carrying out the repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a roof leak.
   2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a roof leak.
5. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of a roof leak

6. There were service failures when repair jobs were closed in error, which contributed to the delays in identifying and progressing the roof leak repairs. There was also poor communication by the landlord during the handling of the repairs. It did not inform the resident when an appointment was cancelled. It also did not contact the resident when it had not received her compensation claim form. The landlord did not acknowledge all these failures in its responses.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

7. The landlord delayed by 3 weeks in acknowledging the initial complaint, which was not in line with its policy and procedures. This delay pushed back the time to provide the stage 1 response. The landlord did not acknowledge this failure.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. In accordance with the lease, the landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance to the structure and exterior of the building. The leaseholder is responsible for repairs and maintenance inside their own property. However, the leaseholder’s handbook also states where damage to decorations is caused by water penetration as a result of a defect to the structure, the leaseholder may claim on the landlord’s building insurance.
9. There is no evidence that the resident reported the roof leak during the telephone call she said she made on or around 20 October 2023. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord. The earliest record showing that she reported the roof leak and water ingress to her bedroom is dated 20 November 2023. It was positive that the landlord followed its policy by attending and completing repairs within the 7-day timescale. The repair logged on 24 November 2023 recorded that the contactor repaired underfelt from inside the loft area. It did not record whether the contractor inspected the roof externally. However, no follow-on works were raised, and landlord closed the job as completed.
10. The resident raised a recall on 11 December 2023 because the earlier repair had not resolved the leak. The repair log recorded that the contractor contacted the resident that day and that she reported no further leak since the repair. The landlord then closed the job. However, the resident said this contact did not happen and the leak was left unresolved. We cannot determine with certainty what happened. The repair log also shows the landlord had received a report from another resident in the same building, and a separate repair was completed in November 2023. When the landlord referred to these separate repairs in the stage 1 response, the resident raised concerns of confusion stating she had not reported this other issue. These circumstances raise the possibility that the contractor may have contacted the other resident by mistake, and therefore raise record keeping concerns.
11. On 2 January 2024 the resident chased the outstanding leak repair and said the water was still entering the bedroom. The landlord told her the job had been closed, and it needed to raise a further repair. This further substantiates that the previous job task had been closed in error. The landlord did not acknowledge this error when the resident raised it in her complaints.
12. The resident was inconvenienced when no one turned up for the prearranged visit on 8 January 2024. The evidence shows the contractor did not attend because of unforeseen availability issues on the day. We acknowledge this type of situation can occur and can be unavoidable. However, it was a service failure that the landlord did not contact the resident to inform her that the visit would not go ahead. This was poor communication which led to the resident being further inconvenienced by having to chase the missed appointment. The job was rearranged for 17 January 2024, then to 18 January 2024 so she could be home.
13. At the visit on 18 January 2024, the contractor identified that scaffolding was required to repair lath, felt, and tiles around the chimney. The scaffolding was erected and roof repairs were completed on 15 February 2024 and there were no further leaks reported by the resident.
14. In its stage 1 response, the landlord gave the resident a claim form to support her request for compensation for damage to her ceiling. We have reviewed the claim form template that was in use at the time. It stated that the landlord would only consider compensation payments where there was proven neglect. It also explained that claims likely valued under £750 would be handled by the landlord, rather than its insurers who dealt with claims over £750. From photographs showing low-level damage to the ceiling and to the stick-on strip lighting, it is possible that the claim would have been under £750. The form also said the landlord would acknowledge receipt of the claim within 10 working days and issue a decision 30 days later.
15. On 19 February 2024, the resident told the landlord that she had completed and returned the claim form. There is no evidence that the landlord received it, and the landlord confirmed to us that it did not receive the form. As the resident had said she had sent it in, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact her at the time to clarify its position. It did not do so, which left the resident unaware that the form had not arrived and demonstrated poor communication by the landlord. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that its inspection found minimal damage to the ceiling and no negligence in the handling of repairs, and therefore it offered no redress. It is of concern that the landlord sought to limit its compensation awards in this way. Limiting compensation to cases involving negligence meant that landlord service failures that did not meet this threshold did not warrant compensation. It is noted that the landlord’s current compensation policy and compensation claim form are no longer worded in the same way.
16. To summarise, our investigation found that the landlord delayed progressing the external roof repairs. As a result, the leak into the bedroom continued for longer than it might if repairs had progressed sooner. It is not clear from the evidence that the landlord carried out a thorough external inspection in November 2023. The records show the extent of the roof repairs identified in January 2024 was not identified in November 2023. The job that was closed in error on 11 December 2023 had caused a further delay in the landlord progressing repairs. The landlord’s overall communication was also poor, particularly when it did not contact the resident of the cancelled appointment and when it did not tell her it had not received the compensation claim form.
17. To recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the avoidable delays and poor communication, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £150.This aligns with our remedies guidance for cases where the failures have had an adverse effect and the landlord did not address the impact. We have also ordered the landlord to pay £100 towards cost of redecorating the bedroom ceiling.

18. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the timescales.
19. The landlord’s complaint handling fell below the expected standard. It delayed by 3 weeks in acknowledging the stage 1 complaint. This delay pushed back the time to provide the stage 1 response.
20. The stage 2 complaint was logged on 21 February 2024, but it is not clear whether the landlord formally acknowledged this as it should have. However, it was positive that it was responded to within its required timescales.
21. To acknowledge the poor complaint handling relating to the delay, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a service failure with minimal impact, where the delay did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. Limited information in the landlord’s records affected our ability to complete a robust investigation. The resident’s initial reports of the leak in October 2023 were not recorded. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) explains that poor data management can prevent landlords from using information effectively to improve services. The landlord should strengthen how it records and uses data, which may involve better training, clearer guidance or additional staff support. The spotlight report also provides eLearning and tools that can assist landlords in improving their information management practice.

Communication and complaint handling

23. The landlord should improve its approach to customer service in complaint handling. It should recognise and acknowledge complaints at the earliest opportunity, in line with its policy. It should also ensure staff understand the importance of logging complaints correctly so that issues are addressed promptly and residents receive timely update.
24. The landlord should review its approach to resident communication to ensure that important updates are given promptly and consistently. It should ensure residents are informed when appointments change or repairs cannot proceed as planned. It should also introduce checks to confirm that documents sent by residents have been received and logged correctly. Clear communication at these stages would help reduce avoidable delays and prevent residents being left without essential information. This could also help the landlord avoid complaints.