Birmingham City Council (202445622)

Decision
Case ID	202445622
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Birmingham City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	7 January 2026

Background

1. The resident moved into the property in 2023. The landlord chose not to replace the non‑standard bathroom suite installed by the previous resident. Instead, it accepted responsibility to repair and maintain it. In December 2024, the landlord’s contractor told the resident that she was responsible for repairing a bath leak because the bath was a non‑standard fitting. Over the following months, she disputed responsibility for the repair. She also raised concerns about the bathroom radiator, sink, and poor ventilation. The landlord has completed the associated works. However, the resident has recently raised further concerns with the landlord relating to the leak from the bathroom.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Multiple internal repairs including to the:
      1. Bath leak.
      2. Bathroom radiator.
      3. Kitchen ceiling.
   2. The associated complaints.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of:
   1. Multiple internal repairs.
   2. The associated complaints.

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

Summary of reasons

Multiple internal repairs

4. The landlord did not maintain proactive oversight of the repairs or ensure they were completed within reasonable timescales. This placed an ongoing responsibility on the resident to continue reporting the same issues. There was a pattern of communication, record keeping, and repair service delivery failures. The repeated failures indicate a lack of learning by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the failures during its complaints procedure and awarded some compensation. However, this did not fully put things right.

Complaint handling

5. There were recurring delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, falling short of the expectations of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling. The landlord also failed to notify the resident that it was not accepting her March 2025 complaint until she made another complaint in July 2025. The landlord did not offer an appropriate remedy to address these failures.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 made up as follows: £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the multiple internal repairs. This includes the £300 it awarded through its complaints procedure. £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors 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 the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 04 February 2026
2	Communication order The landlord must either provide the resident with its liability insurer’s details so that she can make a claim for damaged possessions or confirm what information it requires to assess a claim internally.	No later than 04 February 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If the landlord decides to assess the resident’s liability insurance claim itself rather than going through its liability insurer, it should explain its decision to the resident in writing, including the reasons for the decision.
We recommend that the landlord arrange for a suitably qualified member of its staff to inspect the resident’s kitchen ceiling to confirm whether repairs are required. The landlord should complete this inspection itself because of conflicting assessments by its contractor. It should also provide the resident with a written outcome of its findings, providing a detailed schedule of works for any identified works.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 December 2024	The resident complained that a contractor attended but refused to fix a leak from her jacuzzi bath, which was causing damage to her kitchen ceiling.
24 December 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and committed to providing a response within 15 working days.
31 December 2024	The landlord did not uphold the complaint, saying it was unlikely the jacuzzi bath was installed when she moved in and that she was responsible for the repairs.
7 January 2025	The resident said her complaint was not properly investigated. She explained that the bathroom suite was installed by the previous resident, which the landlord had agreed to maintain. She also wanted a response on her request for an extractor fan and her concerns about the bathroom radiator.
3 February 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and committed to providing a response within 20 working days.
4 February 2025	The landlord upheld the complaint, saying the non‑standard bathroom fittings were left because they were suitable. It accepted responsibility for repairs and confirmed a repair order for the bath leak was raised. It signposted the process for requesting an extractor fan. It did not address concerns about the bathroom radiator.
12 March 2025	The resident raised another complaint about the bath leak and the radiator. She said she wanted the repairs completed “once and for all”.
23 July 2025	The resident said her bathroom flooring had not been replaced and that several appointments had been cancelled. She described the ongoing incomplete repairs as “exhausting” and said she was still waiting for the radiator and sink to be replaced. She asked the landlord to respond on all outstanding works. She also referred to the lack of a response to the complaint she made in March 2025. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on the same day and said it would provide a response within 15 working days. It also told her that her March 2025 complaint had been rejected as a duplicate of her December 2024 and January 2025 complaints. It apologised for not notifying her of this when the decision was made.
13 August 2025	The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It explained that the bathroom flooring was not completed in a timely manner and that cancellations due to “unforeseen circumstances” were not acceptable. It apologised for the inconvenience caused. The landlord summarised earlier repair orders for the bathroom radiator and confirmed it had raised a new order, as none were open at the time. It said it would arrange for a compensation award to reflect these failures and their likely impact. It did not respond to the resident’s point about her sink.
25 August 2025	The resident said issues with her bathroom radiator were ongoing, with delays in resolving them. She had previously asked for the radiator to be replaced with a standard one and said she had been trying to resolve this for an extended period.
26 September 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and committed to providing a response within 20 working days.
29 September 2025	The landlord said its August 2025 complaint response remained unchanged. It confirmed the bathroom flooring was completed on 12 August 2025. It said an appointment for the bathroom radiator was scheduled for 20 August 2025, but access was not provided. The landlord said it would request evidence that its contractor followed the correct procedure and provide an outcome after reviewing this. It awarded the resident £300 for the failures in the handling of the bathroom flooring and radiator repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she felt the landlord had not taken her concerns seriously and that the landlord’s handling of her requests about the bathroom fixtures and damage to the kitchen ceiling during its complaints procedure was disappointing.

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 multiple internal repairs
Finding	Maladministration

Bath leak and the associated damage to the kitchen ceiling

6. Good record keeping is essential because it allows landlords to maintain accountability and transparency. The landlord’s initial handling of repairs to resolve the bath leak shows its record keeping fell short of these expectations. Although it confirmed in August 2023 that it would retain the non‑standard bathroom and accepted responsibility for repairing the jacuzzi bath, in its December 2024 stage 1 complaint response it said the resident was responsible because it was “unlikely” the bath was installed when she moved in. This likely inconvenienced the resident and unreasonably contributed to delays in the repairs being completed.
7. It was appropriate that the landlord corrected its position in its February 2025 stage 2 complaint response and raised repair orders for the leak to be resolved. Landlords are not obliged to replace items if repairs can resolve the issue. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to try repairing, rather than replacing, the bath to begin with. Multiple attempts are sometimes necessary to resolve complex issues such as leaks, so the fact that the initial repairs to the bath in February 2025 did not work does not necessarily indicate a failure by the landlord.
8. It was inappropriate that the landlord’s contractor cancelled at least 3 further repair orders between 26 February and 4 April 2025 to address the recurring bath leak, stating that the resident was responsible for the repairs. This indicates the landlord did not properly ensure its contractor was clear about the repair obligations, which likely added to the resident’s frustration and inconvenience. On 4 April 2025, the landlord raised another repair order, explicitly stating that the works must not be cancelled because it had accepted repair responsibility. It also asked how it could prevent similar errors in the future. This shows learning from these failures, which was positive.
9. By the time the bath was replaced around 14 May 2025, approximately 5 months had passed since the resident first complained after a contractor incorrectly told her she was responsible for the repairs. The water damage to the kitchen plaster was repaired around 18 June 2025. Overall, this was an excessive length of time for the repairs to remain unresolved, significantly exceeding the expectations of the landlord’s repairs policy, which says routine repairs should be done within around 1 month. It also likely had a negative impact on the relationship between the resident and the landlord.
10.  In October and November 2025, the resident raised further complaints about the positioning of the replaced bath and the handling of repairs to the kitchen ceiling following conflicting contractor assessments in October 2025. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Given the time between the resident’s original complaint, the landlord’s responses, and these later complaints, and as the landlord had not issued its final complaint response about these new concerns at the time of this investigation, we have no power to investigate these issues. The resident may be able to bring the complaint to the Ombudsman as a separate matter for consideration if she remains dissatisfied once she has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Bathroom flooring

11. The landlord raised a repair order around 7 May 2025 to renew the bathroom flooring. A contractor attended on around 15 May 2025 to renew the bathroom flooring and booked follow‑on works for 4 June 2025. These works were later cancelled because the resident was waiting for a privately installed shower screen. Without the screen, she could not keep the floor dry, which was necessary for the flooring works to proceed. The parties agreed that the works would be completed once the screen was installed, and the resident said she would make contact when this was done.
12. The landlord raised a further repair order on 13 June 2025 to complete the flooring works. The works were not completed until 12 August 2025 and had been rearranged on at least 2 occasions due to “unforeseen circumstances”. This exceeded the landlord’s timescale for routine repairs and likely caused inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s records also show it did not maintain adequate oversight of the repairs, which led to a reactive rather than proactive approach to managing them. In its August 2025 stage 1 complaint response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that the reasons for the cancellations were unacceptable and apologised.

Bathroom extractor fan 

13. On 5 December 2024, the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in her bathroom. She asked the landlord to install an extractor fan. The landlord did not investigate her concerns or respond to her request at the time. This was a failure in its communication and fell short of the landlord taking a zero‑tolerance approach to damp and mould, as we would have expected it to have done. The lack of action likely inconvenienced the resident, as she raised the issue again as part of her January 2025 stage 2 complaint.
14. In its February 2025 stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised the resident that she could contact its repairs centre to request an extractor fan. While this advice was correct, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise the request itself as part of putting right its failure to act on her earlier request.
15. A damp and mould inspection took place around 14 February 2025. It confirmed that installing an extractor fan would likely resolve the damp, mould and condensation concerns. The landlord’s contractor installed the fan by around 26 February 2025, which was reasonable. Although the works were completed within expected timescales once the inspection was completed, the earlier lack of proactive response represented a shortcoming in the landlord’s handling of the issue and caused avoidable delays.

Bathroom radiator

16.  On 5 December 2024, the resident reported that the bathroom radiator was not providing adequate heat. The landlord should have assessed whether the radiator was suitable and working effectively. The landlord did not carry out an assessment or explain why it would not do so, which was unreasonable. This likely inconvenienced the resident, as she raised the issue again as part of her January 2025 stage 2 complaint.
17. The Code requires landlords to respond to all aspects of a resident’s complaint or explain why this is not possible. The landlord did not specifically address the resident’s concerns about the bathroom radiator in its February 2025 stage 2 complaint response, which did not comply with the Code. The resident raised the concern again on 5 February 2025. However, the landlord did not respond at the time. This may have further undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s repairs service.
18. On 24 February 2025, the landlord raised a repair order to resecure the loose bathroom radiator. The order was cancelled because a higher‑priority repair was raised. The landlord should have ensured the radiator repair was still completed, as it remained responsible for completing the work. Its failure to do so was unreasonable and indicates poor oversight of its repairs service. In its August 2025 stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged this failure and said it would use the issue as a learning opportunity.
19. The landlord’s repair records did not meet our record keeping expectations. Although its August 2025 stage 1 complaint response referred to a no‑access appointment on 9 April 2025, it did not explain the outcomes of later appointments. Its records show repair appointments raised between 14 and 15 April 2025, but the outcomes are not clearly documented. This lack of detail means we cannot assess the outcomes of these appointments or confirm that the landlord acted appropriately in meeting its repair obligations.
20. By September 2025, the heating issue remained unresolved. The landlord accepted in its September 2025 stage 2 complaint response that there had been failings in its handling of these repairs. It also referred to a no‑access appointment on 20 August 2025 but said it would check whether the correct procedure was followed, as the resident disputed this. It did not provide the resident with an outcome, which undermined its commitment to putting things right and indicates inadequate oversight of both the repairs and any barriers reported by its contractor.
21. The issue remained unresolved beyond the landlord’s complaints procedure, which likely prolonged the resident’s inconvenience. The resident raised the concerns again on 30 September 2025. Although the landlord replaced the radiator in November 2025, the protracted time taken to reach this outcome resulted in unnecessary time and trouble for the resident and only occurred after sustained delays and repeated escalations.

Bathroom sink

22. The landlord did not reasonably respond to the resident’s requests to replace the non‑standard bathroom sink with a standard fitting in its August or September 2025 stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, despite this forming part of her July 2025 stage 1 complaint. This was a further failure to comply with the Code. It was also a missed opportunity to resolve the issue through its complaints procedure, which meant the matter remained outstanding after the landlord’s final complaint response. This likely prolonged the resident’s inconvenience, as she raised again on 30 September 2025 that the sink was impractical due to its small size.
23. An inspection on 8 October 2025 confirmed that the sink was unfit for purpose because of its size and incorrect mixer taps. Although the landlord raised a repair order, it was cancelled after a single no‑access outcome on 21 October 2025. Closing the repair order at that point was unreasonable. A more proactive approach should have been taken to rearrange the missed appointment and ensure the work was completed. This would have been reasonable given the wider repair failures identified at the property, where closer oversight could have helped restore confidence in the landlord’s repairs service.
24. A further appointment was scheduled for 9 December 2025. The resident told us that no operative attended, and no explanation was provided. This likely caused the resident further inconvenience and distress, as it indicates a lack of learning and oversight of the landlord’s repairs service. The resident confirmed that the sink was replaced on 16 December 2025. The time taken to reach this was excessive and likely inconvenienced the resident, as she repeatedly raised the issue during the period we have investigated.

Putting things right

25. Our remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. It says that where failures have adversely affected the resident and the landlord’s attempt to put things right was not enough, compensation of up to £600 may be appropriate. The landlord’s award of £300 does not adequately recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, and we have therefore increased the compensation to £600, including the landlord’s earlier offer. Overall, the landlord missed the opportunity to fully put things right during its complaints procedure, resulting in a finding of maladministration.
26. The resident has said some of her possessions may have been damaged while the leak from the bath remained unresolved. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to tell the resident how to refer a claim to its liability insurer or internally to the landlord’s insurance department. If the landlord decides to assess the claim itself rather than going through its liability insurer, it should explain its decision to the resident in writing, including the reasons for the decision.
27. While we cannot investigate the landlord’s later handling of the kitchen ceiling repairs, we have recommended that it inspect the ceiling to determine whether further work is needed, given the conflicting assessments.

Complaint	The handling of the complaints
Finding	Maladministration

28. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints procedure. In line with the Code, it must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue its stage 1 and stage 2 responses within 10 and 20 working days.
29. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s December 2024 stage 1 complaint around 17 working days after she made it. It issued its December 2024 stage 1 complaint response around 20 working days after the complaint was made, exceeding the Code’s expectations, although this was not an excessive delay. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s January 2025 stage 2 complaint around 20 working days after she escalated it. This again exceeded the Code’s 5 day requirement for complaint acknowledgements and showed that the landlord had not applied learning from its earlier failure. The landlord issued its February 2025 stage 2 complaint response around 21 working days after the resident’s complaint was made, slightly exceeding the Code’s expectations.
30. The landlord did not accept the resident’s March 2025 complaint because it related to issues already considered in her December 2024 and January 2025 complaints. While a landlord is permitted to do this under the Code, the landlord did not inform the resident of its decision at the time. This lacked transparency and may have left her uncertain about how the complaint was being handled, as shown by her request for an update when she raised a further complaint in July 2025. It was unreasonable that she was only told the outcome on 23 July 2025, more than 4 months after she made the complaint.
31. The landlord’s July 2025 stage 1 complaint response was a few days late. It also did not acknowledge her August 2025 stage 2 complaint until around 24 working days after she made it and issued its stage 2 response around 25 working days after she made her complaint. These delays were not in line with the Code and highlight a pattern of complaint handling delays. Although each individual delay was not excessive, collectively they would have caused inconvenience for the resident, as the whole process took longer than it should have.
32. The recurring failures to comply with the Code showed that the landlord had not learned from earlier shortcomings. These failures likely caused the resident uncertainty about how her complaints were being handled and reduced her confidence in the landlord’s ability to put things right during the complaints procedure. Therefore, we find there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 in recognition of the likely impact caused by the identified failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance, as referenced above.

Learning

Communication

33. The landlord’s communication with the resident was often reactive and fell short of expectations around effective communication. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that proactive and tailored communication can reduce distress and minimise the impact of failures. The landlord may wish to review its communication with residents in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report.

Repair oversight

34. The landlord did not maintain adequate oversight of how its repairs service was delivered. It may wish to review its processes to ensure it can do so consistently, which could help it take a more proactive approach to resolving issues when they arise.

Complaint handling

35. The landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the requirements of the Code. The landlord may wish to review the training provided to staff and its procedures to ensure that its complaint handling is in line with these requirements.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord’s records did not always contain the level of detail we would expect as part of good record keeping. It also did not maintain accessible records relating to agreements it had made regarding repair responsibility. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate and accessible records that provide a clear audit trail. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report.