Birmingham City Council (202012972)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012972

Birmingham City Council

21 April 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling og:
   1. Roof repairs to the resident’s property.
   2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
3. The landlord’s repair records state that a work order was raised on 3 March 2020 as there was suspected asbestos in the roof, and an appointment was attended the same day. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether follow-on work was required, but the resident made several calls to the landlord regarding outstanding work.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 23 November 2020 as she said the contractor had completed a temporary repair on the roof, and she was previously informed the roof would be replaced. She thought the condition of the roof with asbestos was illegal. She said she was unwilling for the scaffolding to be collected from her property until the repair was completed. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it said it had raised a repair, but the contractor had said the resident had been “aggressive”, so the landlord advised her to not harass its contractors in line with the tenancy agreement. The resident then escalated the complaint as she had been waiting for the repair for months, there had been scaffolding on the property since August 2020, and the contractors were unprofessional. She also asked for further details regarding the appointment date. There is no evidence that the landlord sent a stage two complaint response, but it sent a letter to the resident on 30 November 2020, advising an appointment had been booked for 8 December 2020.
5. The resident proceeded to chase the repair and raised another complaint on 3 February 2021. She said the contractors were attending without an appointment, and the repair issues were still ongoing. She said she was not refusing access to the property but would only grant access if the contractors attended scheduled appointments. In the landlord’s response, it said it had notified the resident of the appointments through its call centre, and by letter. It said the contractor had informed it that the resident had been rude and did not want the job to be completed, so an appointment was cancelled on 8 September 2020. It reminded her to treat the contractors with respect. The resident escalated the complaint as she disputed that she had been rude to the contractor and said the contractor had been unprofessional. The landlord then reiterated its initial response at stage two of its internal complaints process.
6. After this Service contacted the landlord, it sent the resident a letter on 30 March 2021. It said the repairs to the roof had been completed, it was wind and water tight and there was no risk of asbestos exposure, so the scaffolding needed to be removed and the resident needed to provide access to the contractors.
7. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said that she wanted the outstanding repairs to the asbestos roof to be completed.

Assessment and findings

8. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. It therefore is responsible for maintaining the roof. The repair records show that the resident initially reported that there was suspected asbestos in the roof on 3 March 2020. A contractor attended the same day, but it is unclear from the repair records what work was undertaken, or if further work was required. The resident said the contractor had informed her a follow-up appointment was required, and she chased the repair for several months before the landlord informed her on 30 March 2021 that no further repairs were required. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its voids and repairs works. As the resident has disputed that the contractors completed repairs to the roof, the onus is on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been fully completed. There is no evidence that further repairs were completed, or that an asbestos survey took place to confirm the roof was safe, and as such the Ombudsman is unable to conclude whether the necessary repairs took place or that the landlord followed its policies and procedures appropriately.
9. The landlord’s failed to clearly communicate with the resident regarding the repairs, including in its complaint responses. In its response to the resident’s first complaint, the landlord advised that a further appointment had been booked, but it was unclear what the purpose of the appointment was. The resident then raised a second complaint as her repair concerns will still outstanding and rather than addressing the concerns, or explaining why further repairs were not necessary, the landlord’s response focused upon the resident’s conduct. While it may have been reasonable for the landlord to remind the resident of the terms of the tenancy agreement and its expectations for resident’s conduct, it still had an obligation to address the resident’s repair concerns. The only evidence of the landlord explaining to the resident why the repair was not required was following intervention from this Service, in its letter on 30 March 2021. Even in this response, it said the roof was wind and watertight, but did not explain how or when such repairs had been completed.
10. Similarly, there is no evidence that the landlord addressed the resident’s asbestos concerns until the letter on 30 March 2021, despite her raising the issue in her initial complaint. The only comment the landlord made regarding the asbestos was “While asbestos is not used in the construction industry now, many properties built in the early sixties and seventies may contain a percentage of building products that contain asbestos fibres. Any product containing these fibres on a roof of a property cannot cause damage or asbestos exposure”. This statement does not address the resident’s specific concerns relating to her roof, rather it provided a generalised statement regarding asbestos, so has not reasonably addressed the resident’s complaint.
11. The landlord has not addressed any of these issues, and as such it is appropriate to award compensation for any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of these errors. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance (published on our website), £250 is an appropriate amount of compensation in this case as the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it has acted in accordance with its polices, by ensuring the roof was safe. Furthermore, there was an unreasonable level of involvement by the resident and this Service before the landlord addressed the substantive issue of the resident’s concerns.

Complaints Handling

12. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a two-stage process. If the resident is dissatisfied with its stage one response, they can request a review and the landlord will respond within 20 working days. In the resident’s initial complaint on 23 November 2020, the landlord failed to issue a stage two response, despite the fact the resident escalated the complaint. The landlord did not provide any reasons as to why it would not escalate the complaint, or signpost to this Service to signal the end of its internal complaint procedure. The landlord also failed to signpost the resident to the correct Ombudsman in its stage two response, in the resident’s second complaint.
13. In line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (available on our website), the landlord is expected to “address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.” However, it failed to provide a meaningful response to any of the resident’s complaints, as it did not explain what repair works had been completed, why it would not complete further works, or how it had deemed the asbestos was safe. It also failed to address additional issues raised by the resident in her complaint escalation, including the contractor’s conduct, and reiterated its initial response at stage two. As a result, the resident had to pursue the complaint for several months to be given a clear response regarding the landlord’s stance on its repair responsibilities, which it only clearly addressed after correspondence from this Service.
14. Both of the landlord’s complaint responses were written by the same person. The landlord’s complaints policy states that if a resident requests a complaint review, the complaint will be looked at by “an independent officer”. As all the responses were completed by the same person, the landlord did not follow its policy, and acted contrary to basic complaint handling principles of fairness and impartiality.
15. It is clear that the landlord’s failures to adhere to its complaint policy led to additional time and effort for the resident in pursuing the complaint and it failed to address key elements of the complaint. As the landlord has not acknowledged these failings, it is appropriate to award the resident £250 compensation. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £250-£750 are appropriate when a complainant has to chase responses, the landlord has failed to follow its complaint procedure (including failure to escalate the complaint or signpost the resident) and when the landlord has repeatedly failed to engage with the substantive issue of the complaint. All of these factors are evident within this complaint.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the roof repairs.
17. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

18. The landlord is ordered to provide a clear explanation regarding its decision that the roof repair is satisfactory, and complete any further repairs and an asbestos survey if required in line with the timescales listed in its repairs policy.
19. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £250 for failing to provide evidence that it fulfilled its repair obligations.
    2. £250 for its complaint handling failures.
20. The landlord should provide evidence of the payment to this Service within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

21. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record-keeping practices to ensure quality of its voids and repairs inspections, along with the specific timescales set for each repair.
22. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its responsive complaints policies.