Birmingham City Council (202336125)

Decision
Case ID	202336125
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Birmingham City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	8 December 2025

Background

The resident lives with her father and is a leaseholder of a 3-bedroom maisonette for which the landlord is the freeholder. The resident’s father is elderly with health vulnerabilities. The flat above her is in private ownership sublet under a lease agreement for which the landlord is the freeholder. She complained to the landlord about unresolved leaks from the flat directly above her. The resident said the leak caused damage to her home for which she made a claim through her insurance policy. She told us the landlord did not do enough to resolve the leaks resulting in a prolonged period of ongoing issues.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Leaks and associated damage.
2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaks and associated damage.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord failed to:
1. Take prompt action resulting in ongoing leaks for a prolonged period.
2. Proactively communicate with the resident throughout the events.
3. Comply with the Complaint Handling Code timeframe and resolution principles.

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: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 09 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1500 (offered during its complaints process), for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays and lack of communication in resolving the leaks This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date, if not already done so. 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	9 January 2026
3	Inspection order We have made an inspection order because we need assurance that the landlord has taken action to ensure the leaks and associated damage has been resolved The landlord must contact both parties (the resident and the leaseholder in the upper flat to arrange an inspection of each of the affected properties. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. 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 This should include how the resident can submit a claim to the landlord’s public liability insurance for associated damage as a result of the ongoing leaks	9 January 2026
4.	Case review order The landlord must review the case including its complaint handling and provide a report to tell us how it will improve its handling of repairs where it has an obligation to maintain the structure of the property under the terms of a lease agreement. The landlord must provide the resident and us with its report by the due date	30 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
September 2023 to February 2024	On 19 September 2023 the resident raised a complaint about an ongoing leak from the flat above her property. She told the landlord it had been ongoing for 5 months. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 27 February 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding and told her: It had spoken to her on 27 February 2024. She had said the leak had been resolved and they were in the later stages of restoring their home through the insurance company It had conducted numerous visits prior to a resolution The recent visit on 25 January 2024 to both properties found that there was no leak. The owner of the upper flat had explained that there had been a previous leak on the radiator in the hall, however this had been resolved Both parties had agreed to make contact with each other should there be any further issues. The resident had agreed to inform the landlord’s home ownership team if she was unable to contact the owner of the upper flat The resident had been given advice about pursuing a claim through her contents insurance
March 2024	On 10 March 2024 the resident informed the landlord the leak had started again. The landlord escalated her complaint and sent its stage 2 response on 15 March 2024, stating: There had been numerous communications between all parties including contractors It reiterated its position outlined within the stage 1 response The leaseholder of the flat above was responsible for repairing the leak It gave her advice to contact her insurance company
Referral to the Ombudsman March 2024 to October 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to us. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the leak that she stated had been ongoing for 4 years. She said the leak had damaged her property resulting in her having to submit an insurance claim. In October 2025 the landlord recently contacted us to say it had reviewed the complaint. It apologised to the resident for the ongoing leaks and outstanding repairs to a balcony relating to the upper flat. It also told her there were failures in relation to its handling of her reports of repairs and the associated complaint resulting in prolonged delays. It offered her £1500 compensation. The resident recently told us that while she accepted its compensation offer, she did not feel this was enough for the adverse impact caused. She also said the landlord had not done enough to reassure her the issues were resolved. The resident told us her home was suffering from damp and mould due to the leak, and she did not feel she could continue to make a claim through her insurance when she had not been reassured by the landlord that the leak was resolved. She described the stress on her and her father due to the ongoing issues. She said that their health had been impacted significantly by the ongoing events.

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	Leaks and associated damage
Finding	Maladministration

Under the terms of the lease agreement the resident and landlord have responsibility to keep the property in a good repair and condition. For example, the leaseholder must:
1. Allow the landlord access to the home to assess and repair areas it is responsible for
2. Keep the home in good repair and condition
3. Insure the contents of their home
The lease agreement states that the landlord has the right to enter the property in some circumstances to carry out repairs if there is a danger to other residents. For example, if damage was caused to other properties in the block because a leak was flooding the flat/s below.
The lease states that the landlord must:
1. Maintain the structure of the building and any area that is shared with other residents such as lifts and stairs
2. Insure the building (not the contents)
If a resident breaks a condition of the lease the landlord states it will take action to make the resident responsible to put things right.
There appears to be a history of ongoing and intermittent leaks from the flat above the resident from as early as 2018. In the interest of fairness and due to the time, which has elapsed our investigation will start from 2023 up until the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in March 2024. However, events continued after the landlord issued its final response letter. Where appropriate, we will refer to key events in order to provide a full overview of the presenting issues.
The resident told us that her and her father’s health have been impacted by the landlord’s handling of the issues. Matters of damage to health, their investigation and compensation are not part of the complaints process and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer.
In September 2023 various email exchanges took place between the resident and landlord. These were mainly instigated by the resident by way of chase ups. The resident was concerned about damage to her home as a result of the ongoing leaks from the flat above. We have seen evidence of the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue with the owner of the flat, however, this failed and therefore it referred the matter to its legal team to pursue action. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident raised a complaint in mid-September 2023. She continued to chase up the landlord with concerns about an ongoing leak. The resident was clearly distressed by the events and had to call out the fire service for assistance to deal with the leak.
In November 2023 the resident had not received a response to the complaint and continued to chase up the landlord about the ongoing leak. She told the landlord the leak had caused damage to her home. She wanted its reassurance that the leak had been fully resolved and asked the landlord to arrange an inspection of the flat above her.
By this time, due to the frustration and distress caused, the resident contacted her MP for assistance. The landlord told her MP there was a build-up of leaves on the balcony of the flat above her that had caused a blockage and water penetration to her home. It said it had told the leaseholder in the flat above her to clear the leaves. While it was positive the landlord was in contact with the owner of the flat above the resident, it was inappropriate that the landlord delayed in its action to make sure the leak was resolved.
The resident was left in the dark about what was happening. The resident and her father were significantly impacted by the delays in resolving the matter and the landlord’s lack of communication with the resident added to the distress and frustration caused.
During December 2023 and January 2024, the landlord’s records referred to difficulty in contacting the leaseholder of the flat above and its legal team was now involved in the case. We accept the landlord’s difficulties in contacting the leaseholder would have added to the delays. In these circumstances the landlord is left in a difficult position as it was necessary to pursue legal action through the court to obtain access to the upper flat, however, given there was potential damage to the structure of the property, the landlord had a responsibility to expedite legal action to ensure the leak was resolved within a reasonable timescale. We have not seen evidence the landlord recognised the urgency and expedited action resulting in a 4-month delay at this point. The landlord’s inactions were therefore inappropriate.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response in February 2024 stating it had conducted numerous visits. The recent visit towards the end of January 2024 to both properties found that there was no leak. Moving forward, both parties had agreed to contact each other if there were any further issues. The resident was told to contact the insurance company to pursue a claim for damages.
In mid-March 2024 the resident told the landlord the leak had started again. She escalated her complaint and shortly afterwards the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It reiterated its position – the leaseholder from the above flat was responsible for repairing the leak and it advised the resident to contact her insurance company to pursue a claim under her contents insurance. While the landlord’s actions were reasonable, there were 2 significant failures in its overall handling of the leak and associated works outlined below.
The landlord as freeholder of the lease had responsibility to ensure the building structure was maintained. It therefore had a responsibility to ensure the owner of the above flat complied with the terms of the lease agreement and repaired the leak from within their property within a reasonable timeframe. We appreciate the landlord difficulties in resolving the matter with the owner of the flat and its positive approach of pursuing legal action to gain access to the property. However, this process took too long resulting in an initial delay of around 5 months.
The resident reported concerns about a 2nd leak around March 2024. It is unclear when this leak was fixed. However, the resident recently told us the leak had stopped in around June 2025. It is unclear from the records if this was the full duration of a leak, however, it appears to have been intermittent.
The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident let it down. There were prolonged periods where the resident did not know what was happening and even now, she has informed us she does not know if the leak has been fully resolved.
It is unclear what prompted the landlord’s review of the complaint given the lengthy period since its stage 2 complaint (17 months) however, it acknowledged its failures in its handling of the issues and complaint and offered the resident £1500 compensation. While it was positive the landlord recognised its failures and offered redress, this came too late. This level of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance for significant failures and significant impact caused to the resident. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident during its complaints process. For these reasons we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak and associated works. We have not however awarded further compensation as we consider the landlord’s offer fair and reasonable, even though it ought to have been paid earlier.
We have made orders to ensure the landlord puts things right for the resident. This includes an inspection of both properties to assess whether the leak has been resolved including an assessment of any associated damage. The landlord should also signpost the resident to make a claim on its liability insurance for damage caused to her home.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 19 September 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 response 5 months later on 27 February 2024.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code – 2022) states that stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days. The landlord’s delayed response was inappropriate no doubt causing the resident additional frustration as well as her time and trouble in numerous chase ups to the landlord.
The resident escalated the complaint on 10 March 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 5 days later on 15 March 2024. Our Code states that stage 2 responses must be sent within 20 working days. This timeframe was therefore appropriate.
The landlord did not identify any failures during its complaint investigations. However, 17 months later it recognised its failures, apologised and offered an overall compensation figure of £1500 that did not breakdown the amount it had apportioned to its complaint handling failures. While this review was welcomed it is not within the true spirit of its complaint handling procedure given the significant delay in its review of the complaint. The landlord missed an opportunity to put things right within its complaints process. This was inappropriate.
In conclusion, we have found maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling due to the significant delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint and its failure to put things right for the resident through the complaint process. The landlord should apologise to the resident and review its complaint handling to ensure lessons are learned going forward.

Learning

Communication

Overall, the landlord’s communications were poor. The landlord should review the complaint and ensure it learns from the failures identified within this report.