Birmingham City Council (202410145)

Decision
Case ID	202410145
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Birmingham City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Introductory Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

Background

The resident was a tenant of the landlord’s. His tenancy began in December 2023. At that time, the resident was deemed to need an urgent move (Band A priority). This was due to severe overcrowding at his previous address. The resident says he never moved to the property. He eventually ended his tenancy in December 2024. The property is a flat in a converted house. It has a shared garden. The resident has a number of vulnerabilities. These include depression and anxiety. The landlord is a local council.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition on letting.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition on letting.
2. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition on letting

The landlord showed a lack of proactivity. Its approach contributed to a prolonged delay, which had a serious adverse impact on the resident. During its complaints process, the landlord did not recognise the full extent of its failures or make a reasonable attempt to put things right. There is no indication that it attempted to learn from the complaint.

Complaint handling

During its complaints process, the landlord overlooked various handling issues which adversely impacted the resident. It did not recognise its key failures or make a reasonable attempt to put things right.

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 If it has not done so already, the landlord must pay the resident the £1,350 in compensation that it awarded him in 2025. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date.	No later than 27 March 2026
2	Bills/costs order The landlord must contact the resident and gather details of his bills/costs for the property. It is entitled to ask him for supporting evidence. Having established his relevant expenses (for the period between December 2023 and December 2024), it must reimburse these to ensure he is not out of pocket. It must evidence its actions to us.	No later than 27 March 2026
3	Learning order The landlord must appoint a senior manager (area level or above) to review this report’s key findings. This is to ensure that it embeds/has embedded any relevant learning or improvements. On completion of the review, the landlord must share its findings with its relevant staff. It must share a copy of its related internal correspondence with us.	No later than 27 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 May 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. He said the flat had lacked heating and hot water since his tenancy began. Similarly, that repairs had been hindered by unsanitary conditions in the garden. He did not say where he was living. In summary, his other key points were: He was paying rent for a flat that was uninhabitable. The distressing situation was exacerbating his health issues. There had been a lack of communication from the landlord. The landlord should take various steps to resolve matters. These included providing an alternative property and a rent refund.
30 August 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said the flat needed a new boiler. It also said it had been unable to erect scaffolding because the neighbour prevented access. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint. It did not award any compensation. The landlord’s other key points were: It would not have let an uninhabitable property. The garden was in an adequate condition on letting. It had been unable to contact the resident at times. It was sorry about the delayed repair. As an interim measure, it would try to repair the existing boiler.
30 August 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said the landlord had omitted information and its response was inaccurate. He also said it had not engaged with his various requests. He reiterated these and asked the landlord to compensate him. The resident’s other key points were: The landlord should have managed the access issue. A recent repair visit had confirmed the boiler was not functioning. The flat had lacked a boiler during the winter months. The neighbour’s belongings had “taken over” the garden.
26 September 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It did not change its previous decision or compensate the resident. In summary, it reiterated its view that the resident and neighbour had contributed to the delay. It said a scaffolding appointment had been arranged. It also said the resident should provide some documents to progress his rehousing application.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In October 2024 the resident told us the landlord had recently replaced the boiler. He also said it had not compensated him or refunded his rent payments. In February 2026, the resident told us that the landlord had eventually acknowledged its failures and awarded compensation. He also said that it had not done enough to put things right for him.

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	Response to concerns about the property’s condition on letting
Finding	Severe maladministration

The resident says the flat was uninhabitable on letting. The landlord has disputed this. It supplied records of its works and inspections prior to the resident’s tenancy. These include gas safety records from 17 October 2023. The gas records show that, on that date, the property’s boiler would not “fire up”. This points to a significant existing defect.
The landlord has a lettings standards document. It says the landlord will audit an empty property’s heating system to identify any defects. The landlord will remedy any immediate health and safety issues. However, it will complete any required follow up works when the property is occupied. This includes the installation of any new heating system.
Overall, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord let the property in an unacceptable condition. However, its repairs policy says it should respond to urgent repairs within 7 days. This includes a reported lack of heating or hot water in winter. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s urgent timescale was relevant in this case.
Records show the resident’s tenancy began on 11 December 2023. We have not seen any repair reports from this period. However, the landlord surveyed the property’s boiler on 12 December 2023. This indicates that the resident may have reported repair issues at this stage. The landlord’s survey report mentioned a new boiler and an access issue.
The resident says that unsanitary conditions in the garden hindered a repair. He also says these occurred because the neighbour did not clear up after their dog/s. The evidence supports this assertion. For example, on 19 December 2023 a contractor reported that it had been unable to install scaffolding because there was “dog poo everywhere”. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it promptly contacted the neighbour to try and resolve the problem. This was a reasonable approach.
However, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord attempted to progress matters after it had contacted the neighbour. This points to a lack of monitoring and coordination between its teams. On 11 March 2024, the resident chased the landlord about the outstanding repair. It is likely that this was avoidable and inconvenient for him.
The landlord visited the neighbour around 1 week later. Its records show there was an altercation. The landlord promptly took enforcement action against the neighbour. In late March 2024, it inspected the garden and found it was free of dog mess. Soon afterwards, it notified its repairs team that the issue was resolved. These were reasonable steps.
The above shows the landlord did use its tools and powers to influence the neighbour. However, it may have missed previous opportunities to do this. The evidence also shows that events followed a similar pattern subsequently. Ultimately, the landlord’s lack of progress prompted the resident to complain in May 2024. In our view, this should not have been necessary.
During its complaints process, the landlord acknowledged that it had contributed to a delay. However, it did not recognise some of the problems identified above. It also emphasised the actions of the resident and the neighbour. Arguably, it showed a defensive approach which minimised the extent of its own delays and failures.
The records and correspondence we have seen show the following events occurred later:
1. On 21 October 2024 the landlord replaced the boiler. This was about 10 months after the resident’s tenancy began.
2. On 26 March 2025 the resident told us the landlord had refunded his rent payments.
3. Around the same time, we asked the landlord to provide its case evidence file.
4. The landlord contacted the resident on 30 April 2025. It said it had investigated its boiler repair and complaint handling. It offered the resident £1,350 in compensation.
In its above referenced correspondence, the landlord apologised to the resident for his experience. It said it had “failed to provide appropriate services in line with [its] existing policies and procedures”. This was a reasonable conclusion on its part. The landlord did not break down its compensation calculation. This may have helped to explain it.
Ultimately, the landlord reviewed the resident’s case about 7 months after it issued its final response to the resident. Its compensation award was welcome and significant. It was also late and prompted by our involvement. As a result, it cannot be fairly considered part of the landlord’s internal complaints process. We cannot use it to reach a reasonable redress finding.
The wording of the landlord’s correspondence indicates that it awarded the resident £1,100 in boiler related compensation. Under our remedies guidance, this level of award is consistent with cases where a landlord repeatedly failed to provide a service, and this had a serious detrimental impact on a resident. This description is relevant to this case.
For example, initial tenancy documents show the landlord was aware that the resident needed an urgent move for health/welfare reasons. The evidence suggests he did not get one. Overall, the landlord’s handling did not reflect a similar sense of urgency. The resident’s correspondence shows this was distressing for him. For example, in his initial complaint he referenced health conditions and requested urgent action from the landlord.
If the landlord had awarded a similar amount of compensation during its internal complaints process, it may have avoided a severe finding from our Service. This is because the evidence suggests its late award was proportionate and consistent with our guidance. As a result, we have not ordered it to pay any additional compensation.
However, there is no indication that the landlord attempted to learn from the resident’s complaint at any point. Its compensation policy says it will “learn from all feedback and use it to improve services”. The landlord departed from a key policy objective. It also missed opportunities to show the resident that it had taken positive action to address his experience. Its approach was inadequate. We have made an order to address this issue.
During some of his interactions with us, the resident said he had paid bills for the flat during his tenancy. He said these were expensive and the landlord’s compensation should reflect his costs. It is unclear if he has raised similar concerns with the landlord. Still, his comments are understandable and we have made an order to address these.
In summary, the landlord showed a lack of proactivity in relation to the repair/access issues. It made a significant contribution to a prolonged delay. The delay had a serious adverse impact on the resident. During its complaints process, the landlord did not recognise the full extent of its failures or make a reasonable attempt to put things right. There is no indication that it attempted to learn from the complaint at any point.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (effective April 2024). The landlord’s relevant complaints procedure (updated June 2023) refers to the Code.
It took the landlord around 76 working days to issue a stage 1 response. Under the Code, landlords must respond to complaints within a maximum of 15 working days at stage 1. In this case, the landlord departed from its policy and the Code. There was a related delay that lasted for about 12 weeks. The resident was adversely impacted by this.
It took the landlord 19 working days to issue its stage 2 response. Under the Code, landlords must respond to complaints within 25 working days at stage 2. In this case, the landlord adhered to the relevant timescale.
There were various issues with the landlord’s overall complaint handling. For example, it did not recognise the above identified delay at stage 1. Given its duration and adverse impact, the landlord should have awarded the resident some compensation. This would have been a reasonable and proportionate approach in the circumstances.
Similarly, the resident raised concerns about the quality of the landlord’s initial response in his escalation request. For example, he said it had not addressed his request for a rent refund. The landlord subsequently overlooked his reiterated request at stage 2. It showed an unreasonable lack of thoroughness. Arguably, it also showed a lack of due care.
Overall, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not consider its own complaint handling during its complaints process. It should routinely do this during every complaint investigation. This includes considering a resident’s complaint journey from beginning to end. This approach will allow the landlord to address any procedural delays or failures.
The evidence shows the landlord’s complaint handling added to the resident’s distress. For example, in September 2024 he told the landlord that he was “deeply disappointed by the repeated inaccuracies and omissions in [its final] response”. He also said it had not adequately addressed the ongoing issues. His comments were understandable.
The landlord acknowledged complaint handling issues during its review in 2025. Its correspondence indicates that it awarded the resident £250 in related compensation. Under our remedies guidance, this level of award is consistent with cases where a landlord has not acknowledged its failings and/or did not attempt to put things right. This description is relevant to the resident’s case.
The evidence shows the landlord’s late award was proportionate and in line with our guidance. As a result, we have not ordered it to pay any additional compensation.
In summary, the landlord overlooked various handling issues during its complaints process. Its related delays and failures had an adverse impact on the resident. Its approach added to his distress. The landlord did not recognise its key failures during its complaints process. Similarly, it did not make a reasonable attempt to put things right.

General learning

The evidence points to a lack of monitoring and internal coordination on the landlord’s part. It could consider whether it has sufficient tools and processes to monitor outstanding repairs/access issues.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

Our investigation did not highlight any significant record keeping issues.

Communication

The landlord did not engage with some of the resident’s key points during its complaints process. Arguably, its responses were overly defensive. As part of its subsequent review, it could have provided related feedback to its complaint handlers.