Birmingham City Council (202011026)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011026

Birmingham City Council

30 August 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s leak reports and related compensation claim for damage caused to the property.
2. The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder. The tenancy began on 3 September 2007. The property is first floor flat which the resident rents out to tenants.
On 14 November 2019, the resident contacted the landlord advising there had been a lot of rain that week and water was coming into the property through the window. He enclosed photos and asked that it arrange for a repair to be carried out as soon as possible.
On 22 December 2019, the resident asked the landlord if a repair had been provided and its response of 24 December 2019 was that a missing roof tile on the (communal) roof had been replaced on 17 December 2019.
On 7 January 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that water was still leaking into the rear of the property, therefore requesting it to be fixed. On 9 January 2020, the landlord advised it had raised a recall on a roof repair which had a 5 day timescale. The notes in the landlord’s repair records indicate that its contractor visited the property on 13 January 2020 but that no one answered the doorbell.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 May 2020 to confirm he had noticed “a considerable amount of damp on the wall” due to the leak caused by the missing roof tile. He said the walls needed replastering. He asked the landlord for details of any process under which he could get the repairs done.
On 6 October 2020, the resident reported that there continued to be a leak which was causing damage. He asked the landlord to attend to fix the issue, asking it to check the rear of the property. He said water was leaking into the hallway and living room through the loft where there were electrics. He was very concerned about the risk of fire and said it had failed to properly fix the issue after he had reported this several times in the past.
The landlord advised the resident on 8 October 2020 that it had added the update to the job to make the contractor aware of the details.
The landlord’s repair contractor left a message on the resident’s phone on 12 October 2020 advising he was unable to attend an appointment booked in for that date. The landlord’s repair records noted that the contractor would contact the resident with another appointment. The resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions over the next two weeks to chase up the further appointment.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 25 October 2020 regarding its handling of the repair to the roof. He said he had called the landlord on multiple occasions over the past three weeks yet the roof had still not been repaired. He reiterated that the water was leaking badly into the loft and said that the electrics were exposed and he was concerned about the fire risk. He referred to video footage that he said he had provided. The resident complained that he had been trying to get the roof repaired since last year. He had spoken to its contractor that morning who had promised an operative would attend that day, within four hours, to assess the situation, however nobody had turned up.
The resident advised when he rang again at 7pm, he was told someone would come out the next day. He said the property needed redecorating as the paint had flaked and an electrician was needed to see if there was any damage caused to the electrics. He asked how to make a claim for this as the landlord had failed to provide the expected service. He said he would be happy to get a third-party contractor to carry out the works and send the bill to the landlord.
On 26 October 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and asked its contractor to provide comments in respect to the points raised by the resident.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident on 27 October 2020. It stated that its contractors had advised that they would attend on a supervisor visit on 28 October at 8am as agreed with the resident. It said the supervisor had left a voicemail on his phone on 12 October 2020 but he did not receive a call back from the resident. It advised that the supervisor would attempt to do the repair on site if they could but if scaffold was required, this would have to be ordered however he would be advised of this.
On 29 October 2020, the resident told the landlord that water from the roof was dripping onto the electrics.
On 30 October 2020, the resident requested a review of complaint. He advised its contractor attended on 28 October 2020 when they told him that a temporary roof tile had been fitted on the last repair. The resident said he told the contractor they had carried out the repair in 2019. The contractor advised they would return on 29 October with a roofer which they did. However, he was then told they had found that more work was needed which would be done by an outside contractor who would attend on 3 Nov 2020. The contractor advised they would look at the work and report back to them with costs and then they would authorise it.
The resident was unhappy that it could take a further month to complete the repair as he was concerned about the damage being caused by the ongoing leak and the risk of fire. In regards to the landlord’s comment about the contractor previously leaving a voicemail message, he said that he received a message from the contractor advising they was unable to attend and to re-arrange the appointment however they did not leave a contact number. He explained he had called their office “20 times” over the course of three weeks attempting to get “a straight answer”.
The resident said he was “extremely disappointed” with the whole experience and the matter had put him under a lot of pressure, as a leaseholder he paid a lot of money for it service which had been “appalling” and had gone on too long without a fix.
The landlord’s internal communications show it asked its repair contractor to respond to the points raised by the resident in his escalation request. On 2 November 2020, its repair contractor said they had attended the previous week and found that a damaged tile needed replacing so arranged to reattend with roofers. When they did they could see that more work was required and because of where repair was, scaffolding or two towers were needed for the repair. It said it had arranged for a subcontractor to carry out the work with towers as matter of urgency.
On 2 November 2020, the landlord provided a stage two final response advising the review had been completed. It relayed the response received from its repair contractor and said a contractor would attend on 3 November 2020. It said it sincerely apologised for any inconvenience that the delay to this repair may have caused him.
On 5 November 2020, the resident asked the landlord if once the leak was fixed, would it pay for the redecorating and for an electrician to inspect the loft area to ensure it was safe.
On 6 November 2020, the landlord provided the resident with a compensation claim form advising that it was only liable to pay compensation in the event it had been negligent or legal liability is accepted and that he should first refer to his own insurance company.
On 8 November 2020, the resident advised that his own insurers had told him the cost of repairing damage was not covered by the policy. He reiterated the need for a repair in order to prevent further damage and his concern about the leak being very close to the electrics in the loft.
The repair to the main roof was completed by the landlord on 2 December 2020. On 14 December 2020, the resident reported a leak from the porch roof.
On 17 December 2020, the resident told the landlord that the leak had soaked the insulation in the loft and this had stained the ceiling at the property.
On 23 December 2020, the landlord attended to carry out a repair to the porch roof.
On 25 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that his tenant had reported earlier that day that the main roof was still leaking. The resident provided a video recording and photos of the leak.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 26 December 2020 advising there had been a leak into his property for more than year and reiterating his concern about the damage being caused by this including damp. He said his property was occupied by tenants one of whom was disabled.
The landlord advised the resident on 29 December 2020 that the roof repair had been reopened and that the contactor would reattend within the next 5 working days. The resident asked the landlord if operatives were coming to view or fix the issue.
On 31 December 2020, the landlord advised if repairs could be done during the appointment, they would be, otherwise a follow up appointment would be arranged.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 4 January 2021 asking it to reply to resident’s complaint.
On 8 January 2021 the landlord advised that an appointment had been booked for 13 January 2021 however due to adverse weather, repairs were not completed on this date.
On 18 January 2021, the resident queried if repairs to both the porch and main roof had been booked in. On 20 January 2021 the landlord told the resident that two jobs were booked for 21 January 2021 – the front entrance porch and the rear roof. This visit went ahead as planned on this date however the evidence suggests that only work to the front porch roof was carried out on that date.
On 2 February 2021, the resident repeated that leak from the main roof had destroyed his property. He said he had to replace the boiler and the windows, plastering and decorating were also “ruined”. He referred again to the electrics in the loft.
On 10 February 2021, the resident reported that the roof was still leaking. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend. The landlord’s internal communications indicate a contractor attended on 18 February 2021, however, when the resident contacted the landlord on 19 February 2021 asking for feedback on the visit, on 23 February 2021, it advised the resident that it was still chasing its contractor for details and said that it would come back to him as soon as possible.
The landlord’s internal communications (dated 21 May 2021) indicate that a further repair was made to the main roof on 8 March 2021
On 13 April 2021, the resident submitted his compensation claim form to the landlord in respect of repairs.
On 14 April 2021, the landlord provided its final stage three response. This acknowledged that the resident’s complaint concerned its handling of roof repairs. It said from the information received from its Contracts Works officer, it understood that works had been completed to the porch roof. It said that the resident’s tenant had also told its officer that the leak to the main roof at the rear was also fixed.
It said its officer had phoned the resident on 26 January 2021 to update him on the works undertaken. It said the resident had confirmed to the officer that he had not seen the leak and was responding to his tenant’s complaint. The landlord requested that the resident contact the tenant to check works had been completed. It said its officer had left his contact details and said he if he was not satisfied after speaking to his tenant he could meet him at the property.
It said his claim for compensation that has been sent to the insurance team due to the amount claimed.

Post final response

On 4 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord regarding his compensation claim referring to an offer received from its repair contractor for compensation of £500. He explained the costs incurred and why he was unhappy with the outcome of his claim. The resident also reported that water was still gathering on the front porch when it rains.
In August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord asking if its repair contractor would increase its offer of £500 for the cost of redecorating/electrical costs. On 23 September 2021, the landlord advised its contractor was not willing to increase the offer. The landlord advised it would raise a repair for the issue reported of water gathering on the front porch when it rained.
On 23 September 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that his complaint concerned the length of time taken to fix the roof, the damage caused as a result of the delay and the landlord’s refusal to pay for the full cost of repairing the damage. He said the landlord’s insurance provider refused to pay for the damages so he decided to try to claim compensation directly from the landlord.
In August 2022, the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that all repairs had been completed and that he remained unhappy about the issues set out in his previous September 2021 communication. He added that he had not yet received the £500 in compensation offered for damage caused to his property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s leak reports and compensation claim

The lease makes clear that the landlord is responsible to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property and common parts.
The landlord’s repair policy requires that: emergency repairs are attended within two hours; urgent repairs are completed within one, three or seven working days and; routine repairs have a target of 30 days from when they are reported. The landlord’s Tenant Handbook gives ‘water leaks through the roof’ as an example of an urgent repair which has a three to seven day response time.
Over the course of approximately 16 to 17 months the resident made several reports to the landlord of water leaking into the property when it rained. The landlord’s internal communications provided to this service show its repair contractor identified that repairs to the main rear roof were required to resolve the leak. Additionally it found an issue with the front porch roof which also needed a repair.
In regards to the leak associated with the main roof, the resident initially reported that water was leaking into the property through the rear UPVC window after a lot of rain, on 14 November 2019. The landlord’s contractor replaced a tile on the main roof in December 2019 to resolve the issue, however, in January 2020 the resident reported that this had not resolved the issue. In response the landlord referred the repair back to its repair contractor to re-attended the property in order to address the leak. This action taken by the landlord was appropriate as the further report from the resident suggested the works that had been provided may not have been sufficient to address the leak.
However, the landlord’s repair records indicate its contractor was unable to gain access when they visited the property on 13 January 2020 due to no one answering the doorbell when they rang. Whilst there is no clear evidence to show the landlord re-attended, as the next contact from the resident was on 14 May 2020, this suggests either that a repair was in fact provided around that time or that no leak was experienced during this timeframe.
Whilst in his May 2020 communication, the resident reported water/damp stains to the walls and ceilings as a result of the leak, he did not tell the landlord that the leak was ongoing, therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to assume the leak had been resolved at this stage. It was also reasonable to expect the landlord to respond to the resident’s report of water/damp stains to the decoration and to his request to make a claim for the cost of rectifying the damage. There is no evidence of any response from the landlord as such this is evidence of poor communication on the landlord’s part.
In response to the resident reporting on 6 October 2020 that the leak was ongoing, the landlord raised a repair with its contractor on 8 October 2020, which was appropriate. However, it is clear that its repair contractor did not attend the property until 28 October 2020. It was then found that subcontractors were required to address the issues identified and it took until 2 December 2020 before a repair was provided. Furthermore, it is evident that the landlord had to refer the repair back to its contractor on a further occasion when the resident later reported on 25 December 2020 that the leak was ongoing.
The landlord’s internal communications (which also included photos of the repairs carried out) indicate that a further repair was found to be needed to the main roof and was subsequently provided on 8 March 2021.
Therefore, the landlord took steps in December 2019 and January 2020 to address the reported leak in November 2019 which resolved the issue albeit on a temporary basis. However, it took the landlord approximately five months to provide a permanent fix following the resident’s further leak report made on 6 October 2020 which was an unreasonable period of time to take. This indicates the leak was not treated with the urgency that could reasonably be expected in the circumstance. Therefore, the delay constitutes evidence of a failure in the service provided.
Furthermore, at times the landlord (or its contractors) did not keep the resident sufficiently informed about the progress of the repair, particularly during the weeks after the resident’s report of 6 October 2020. It is clear that during this timeframe, a contractor failed to attend an appointment and the resident experienced difficulty in getting a further appointment which meant he had to contact the landlord on multiple occasions before it visited on 28 October 2020. It is noted that throughout this time the resident had expressed concern about the impact of the delay on the property.
In regards to the leak from the porch roof, the resident first raised this with the landlord on 14 December 2020 and its repairs contractors attended on 23 December 2020 and carried out a repair. Further work to apply a coating system was booked in for 13 January 2021. Its contractor did not complete the work on this date, however and the evidence suggests this was due to adverse weather conditions. The landlord’s records indicate this appointment was rebooked for 21 January 2021 when the work was completed. On balance, the time taken to provide this repair was reasonable.
Regarding the resident’s claim for compensation, it is noted that he told the Ombudsman in September 2021 that the landlord’s insurers declined to pay his compensation claim for damage caused as a result of the leak. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord was negligent or liable for the costs claimed, as these are matters for an insurance or legal claim to determine, therefore this investigation is unable to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
Nonetheless, this review has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to make a compensation claim and, on balance, overall its handling of this aspect was appropriate. Following the resident’s request in October 2020 to claim for compensation to cover the cost of putting right damage caused by the leaks, the landlord sent him a claim form on 6 November 2020. The landlord said that it was only liable to pay compensation for damaged property in the event it had been negligent or accepted legal liability and advised that the resident should first refer to his own insurance company. As it is usual practice for leaseholders to claim for damage to property via their own contents insurance or where negligence is being claimed, as in this case, through the landlord’s insurance, its advice given in this regard was appropriate.
Once the landlord had carried out repairs to resolve the leaks, the resident submitted his claim form for compensation for the cost to put right the damage caused to his property by the leak. This included the costs of redecoration (£959.04) and electric works (£180), damage to UPVC windows and the cost of a boiler renewal. In its final response dated 14 April 2021, the landlord advised the resident that his claim for compensation had been referred to its insurance team due to the amount being claimed. As the landlord’s claim form makes clear that compensation claims over £750 would be referred to its insurance team, its action in this regard was also reasonable.
It is noted that following a separate discussion between the landlord, its contractor and the resident that occurred outside of the landlord’s complaints’ process, the landlord (its repair contractor) offered to pay the resident compensation of £500 toward the cost of redecorating. This appears to be a goodwill payment towards the cost of rectifying the damage caused by the leak. The resident has confirmed to this Service that he has not received this amount therefore, a recommendation has been included below for the landlord (its repair contractor) to pay the resident this amount offered.
In conclusion, there was an unreasonable delay by the landlord in responding to and providing a permanent resolution to the reported leaking through the main roof. There were also instances of the landlord’s communications with the resident not reaching the expected standard. These failures in the service provided were not acknowledged by the landlord in its complaint responses. Further, it did not offer any compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience during its complaint process, which would have been appropriate in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a three stage complaints process which stated that the landlord will: settle the complaint immediately under stage one; provide a response within 15 working days under stage two and review the complaint within 20 working days under stage three.
Whilst the landlord issued a stage two and stage three response to the resident within the timescales set out in its complaints process, its responses were brief and did not thoroughly address all of the points raised by the resident in its complaint and escalation request, including his complaint about the “appalling service” provided.
In response to a request by the Ombudsman for it to provide a complaint response to subsequent events/issues that had been raised by the resident, the landlord provided a further “stage 3” final response. Again this response was brief and did not include any review of its handling of the issues from the date of the resident’s first leak report. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code makes clear the landlord should investigate the complaint, address all points raised in the complaint and to ensure fairness, processes and procedures shall require the complaints officer to, amongst other things, consider all information and evidence carefully. The landlord’s responses indicate it did not carry out a sufficient investigation of the issues raised in the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s leak reports and compensation claim.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The length of time to attend and fully resolve the leak reported in October 2020 was unreasonable and communication from the landlord (and its contractors) regarding the progress of repairs did not always reach the expected standard. However, the landlord’s advice provided to the resident regarding making a claim for damage caused to his property as a result of the leak, was appropriate.
The landlord’s complaint responses were timely but did not include sufficient detail or adequately address all of the points raised by the resident in his complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Pays the resident £450 in total compensation comprising:
  1. £350 for the service failures when handling his leak reports – this is in addition to the £500 goodwill payment offered (outside the landlord’s complaint process) in respect to damage caused to property and;
  2. £100 for complaint handling.
2. Explain to this Service how it intends to ensures its complaint responses are more detailed and address all points raised in a complaint.
3. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord (its repair contractor) pay the resident the £500 previously offered towards the cost of redecorating.