Birmingham City Council (202520731)

Decision
Case ID	202520731
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Birmingham City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 March 2026

Background

The landlord is aware the resident has mental and physical health issues that make her vulnerable. In June 2025 it started planned works to replace the bathroom.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of:
1. Bathroom refurbishment works.
2. The associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Bathroom refurbishment works.
2. The associated formal complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

There were delays and communication failures in the landlord’s handling of bathroom refurbishment works. The landlord has completed the works and offered appropriate redress but it did not do this on its own initiative and only after our intervention.
There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and its final response did not fully put things right for the resident. It acknowledged failure and offered appropriate redress but this was only done following our intervention.

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
	Insurance order The landlord must confirm in writing to the resident if it will cover the costs of replacing her damaged items and/or provide details of how to make a claim via its insurance.	No later than 27 April 2026
	Learning order The landlord must review the communication failures in this case and identify how it can implement learning with its contractors to avoid similar failures in the future.	No later than 25 May 2026
1	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £1,147.86 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures as follows: £947.86 for its handling of bathroom refurbishment works. £200 for its complaint handling. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 27 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 June 2025	The resident complained about the bathroom refurbishment works. She said the landlord told her it would arrive at 8am that day but by 11:15am it had not turned up. She said the bathroom was partially ripped out and she was unsure when it would be attending to replace this.
23 June 2025	The landlord’s stage 1 response upheld the complaint. It acknowledged it had not attended on time and apologised for this. It said it had visited her to discuss her concerns and arranged for new operatives to complete the works. The resident replied the same day raising concerns about the time it was taking to complete the bathroom works and the quality of these. She said she had tried to raise this with staff but they had made excuses. She said her property had been damaged as a result of the works. The landlord treated this as a request to escalate the complaint.
6 November 2025	The landlord’s stage 2 response partially upheld the complaint. It said it had agreed to do an inspection to review the completed works and the quality of these. It was waiting for this to go ahead. It told her its contractor had raised concerns about her partner’s behaviour towards operatives. It said it would visit her to discuss him not being present during future operative visits. It confirmed compensation would be offered once the works were complete.
28 January 2026	The landlord offered the resident £1,147.86 compensation. It said this was for delays and communication failures in its handling of the bathroom refurbishment works, and for a delay in it responding to the stage 2 complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has confirmed the bathroom works are complete. She has declined the compensation as she feels the landlord should pay more. She said she was grieving the loss of a close family member at the time and the landlord did not consider or respect this.

What we have not looked at

The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould. This was not included in her complaint and so has not been addressed via the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, we cannot investigate this matter. The resident can raise her concerns as a formal complaint with the landlord and once this has completed its internal process, can refer this to us for investigation.

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	Bathroom refurbishment works
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s website says it will maintain its properties by carrying out planned improvements to ensure they are decent and safe. It confirms it has a planned programme that includes replacing bathrooms that are old and in poor condition.
When the resident raised concerns about the quality of the works, the landlord agreed to visit to assess this. This was appropriate and showed it was taking her concerns seriously. The landlord agreed to visit with the contractor in June 2025. However, this did not go ahead until nearly 3 months later in September 2025. This was too long considering the resident had reported leaks in the bathroom and said she was unable to use the bath and shower.
At the time the stage 2 response was sent the landlord was aware the bathroom works were incomplete. It said it would revisit to discuss progressing the works. However, there is no evidence that it did. It was only after contact from us in January 2026 about our investigation that the landlord arranged to visit and progressed this works. This delay contributed to the overall delay in its handling of this matter.
The landlord completed the bathroom refurbishment works in around 8 months. While there is no committed timescale for the landlord to complete bathroom replacement works, this was too long. The delay meant the resident had to live with an incomplete bathroom for an extended period. This affected her use and enjoyment of the property and is particularly concerning as the landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The resident raised concerns about the conduct of contractor operatives. It is not our role to investigate staff conduct concerns as this is for the landlord to investigate. We have assessed how the landlord responded to the concerns and whether this was fair and reasonable. The landlord told the resident it investigated her concerns and as a result it removed operatives from the job and arranged new staff to complete the works. This was appropriate and showed it had taken her concerns seriously.
In September 2025 the contractor raised concerns about the resident’s partner’s behaviour towards operatives. Where these types of concerns are raised the landlord should investigate and decide what, if any, action is required. It is reasonable that these types of issues can lead to a delay in works while the landlord decides how it can progress these safely. However, the landlord should take prompt action to investigate these types of allegations to minimise any delays.
In this case, there is no evidence the landlord investigated the allegations or took any action until around 2 months later when it sent the stage 2 response and included details of these in the letter. This was too long and contributed to the overall delay in the landlord completing the works.
Considering the resident’s vulnerabilities the landlord should have taken a more sensitive approach to its investigation. It would have been appropriate for it to speak to the resident about the reports, but there is no evidence it did. Including these in the stage 2 response with no prior warning or discussion was upsetting for the resident. She replied to the stage 2 response and said the reports were untrue and asked for contact. There is no evidence the landlord followed up or made further contact with her. The landlord said in the stage 2 response that it would visit her to discuss this, but there is no evidence it did. This was unfair and means the resident did not have the opportunity to formally respond to the allegations.
The resident told the landlord her hallway flooring and a drill were damaged as a result of contractor’s actions during the works. We cannot make an assessment in respect of liability as this must be assessed via an insurance claim. We have considered how the landlord responded to the resident. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this concern.
The landlord should have told the resident if it would cover the costs of replacing the damaged items or provided details of how to make a claim via its insurance. Its failure to respond was disappointing for the resident and means her concerns have been left unaddressed. We order the landlord to confirm in writing to the resident if it will cover the costs of replacing the damaged items and/or provide details of how to make a claim via its insurance.
The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s communication, particularly in relation to appointment times. The landlord has told us that poor communication from its contractor meant the resident believed operatives were attending her property at 8am. Instead it was expected that all properties having works done were available for access from 8am and throughout the day.
This poor communication resulted in the resident feeling let down when the landlord did not attend and meant she spent time and effort chasing this up. The landlord is responsible for ensuring its contractors communicate effectively with residents. The landlord acknowledged failure in its communication, which is positive. However, it must ensure appropriate learning is implemented to avoid similar failures happening in the future. We order it to review the communication failures in this case and identify how it can implement learning from this complaint with its contractors to avoid similar failures in the future.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of these works and apologised. It said it would offer compensation once the works were complete. This was unreasonable as the landlord should have offered redress for failures up to that point. Its failure to do so means it did not put things right for the resident. It was appropriate to commit to review the matter on completion of the works to assess if further compensation was needed.
Despite the landlord acknowledging failure in the stage 2 response and committing actions to resolve the substantive issue and pay compensation, it did not proactively follow up and do this. It was only in response to our contact in January 2026 that it progressed the works and offered redress.
While positive that it has taken steps to put things right, this was not done until after we became involved. This means the landlord did not, on its own initiative, put things right for the resident. Considering the timing of the landlord’s offer of remedy it would not be appropriate to make a finding of reasonable redress. We therefore find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the bathroom refurbishment works.
The landlord offered £1,147.86 compensation for its failures in the handling of this issue and the complaint, but did not give specific amounts for each. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will not generally pay more than £250 for discretionary compensation. In this case, the landlord offered significantly more than that. This shows it had recognised the impact on the resident considering the extent of the delay, number of failures, her vulnerabilities and her individual circumstances at the time.
Our remedies guidance says for failures that had a significant impact on the resident compensation between £600 and £1,000 is appropriate. Considering the full circumstances of this matter, we order the landlord to pay the resident £947.86 compensation for its handling of the bathroom refurbishment works.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 10 June 2025, 6 working days after this was made. This was over the committed timescale set out in its policy. It sent the response in 9 working days, in line with the committed response time set out in its policy.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 4 July 2025, 9 working days after the complaint was escalated. This was over the committed timescale set out in its complaints policy. It sent the response in 88 working days. This was significantly over the 20 working day committed timescale and equates to a delay of more than 12 weeks.
The landlord’s stage 2 response sent in November 2025 included information obtained from its contractor in June and September 2025 only. It said a joint visit by the landlord and contractor to review the quality of the works was outstanding. However, this had already been completed in September 2025. The response confirmed works were outstanding but did not include up to date information and failed to fully resolve the issues for the resident.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its complaint handling and offered redress. This was only done after our contact to the landlord in January 2026. Of the £1,147.86 compensation offered, £200 is remaining. Considering the failures and the impact on the resident, this amount is reasonable and in line with its compensation policy that says it will not generally pay more than £250 as discretionary compensation.
While reasonable redress has been offered, as this was only offered after our intervention, the landlord did not on its own initiative put things right for the resident. Therefore a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order it to pay the resident the £200 compensation already offered.

Learning

Where resident’s raise concerns about the quality of works, the landlord should take action to investigate this, as it did in this case. Where concerns are identified it should take timely action to put things right.
The landlord should investigate any concerns about resident’s behaviour promptly. It should investigate these types of reports sensitively, considering any vulnerabilities. It should ensure residents are given adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations.
The landlord should investigate resident’s concerns about staff conduct and provide feedback on the outcome and any action taken, as it did in this case. This ensures residents are reassured it has taken their concerns seriously.
If a resident claims their personal items have been damaged as a result of the landlord’s actions, it should respond to this and, where appropriate, provide details for its insurer so the resident can make a claim.
The landlord’s complaint responses should as far as is possible resolve any outstanding issues and offer appropriate redress for any failures. This should be done as part of the landlord’s internal process and not in response to our contact or intervention.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We have not identified any record keeping concerns within this investigation. The records provided were sufficient for us to complete our investigation.

Communication

There were multiple communication failures in the landlord’s handling of the bathroom refurbishment works and the associated complaint. We have made an order for the landlord to review this so it can implement learning to avoid similar failures in the future.