Birmingham City Council (202015944)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015944

Birmingham City Council

18 February 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 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 is about the landlord’s handling of and communication regarding outstanding repairs for water leaks into the resident’s leasehold property.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the leaseholder of a property from the landlord that is a two-bedroom flat situated in a block of flats. The resident has sublet his property.
The landlord’s records showed that it attended water leaks in a neighbouring flat at the resident’s block as an emergency repair on the same date that these were reported on 15 January 2021.
The resident then emailed the landlord on 20 January 2021 and explained that, following an issue with damp in the property above his flat, it had been suggested to him that the cause may be due to a degradation of the building’s structure. He stated that it had been indicated that the insulation in the outfacing walls may have broken down, allowing damp to build up on the corresponding internal walls. The resident wanted to know what course of action the landlord would take to remedy the issue given that it administered the buildings insurance for the block. The landlord recorded that it made an internal request on 20 January 2021 for this to be investigated by it, and for him to be updated.
The resident sent another email to the landlord on 10 March 2021 advising that he had not received a response to the above email that he had sent about the damp in his property. He explained that he had received a call from his tenant there on 9 March 2021, who had advised that water was coming into the kitchen from the ceiling, and that this had caused the paint to come off the walls. The resident explained that he had previously mentioned to the landlord that there had been water running down the bedroom wall of his property, and had described the whole property as being damp.
The resident explained that he had spoken to the other residents in the block, and that one had mentioned that they had numerous problems with water leaking down the wall and that many of the landlord’s contractors had unsuccessfully tried to fix this. Another resident living in the block was described as having explained to him that they had water coming down their lounge walls, which had also been reported to it. A further resident was referred to as having reported that they had damp filling their flat.
The resident explained that this was an ongoing issue for a long period of time, which had been reported to the landlord and that the residents in the block were not getting responses to their complaints about this to it. He further stated that his tenant wanted to end their tenancy due to the water and constant damp in his property.
The resident further explained that his own contractors had attended the property to put extra vents in windows, install double radiators, and have vents cleaned out in the walls, to try to prevent the damp and mould at his cost. He also said that the tenant living in the property had health issues due to the damp and had to seek medical treatment. The resident attached photographs of damp in the property from 9 March 2021 as evidence of this, and he requested a call back from the landlord to discuss his complaint about this. He also asked to make an insurance claim on the landlord’s buildings insurance for all of the damage done to his property.
On 11 March 2021, the resident sent an email to the Ombudsman, and he explained that he had raised his concerns about the damp issues and the leak to the landlord but that had not received a response from it. He explained that his property was getting more damaged as time went by, neighbouring flats were being affected, and his formal complaints to it were not being delivered. The resident also mentioned the impact that this was having on his tenant who was living in the property.
The landlord subsequently noted that the resident had reported a water leak into his property from the flat above to it on 16 March 2021, which it attended on 30 March 2021.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord seeking to make a final stage complaint to it on 25 March 2021, and he explained that, following numerous emails and telephone calls from its contractors about the issue, he had been advised by three contractors that the property’s water leak problem was coming from the building’s roof. He explained that the last contractor had attended this on 25 March 2021, but that no roof inspection had been carried out for this yet. The resident added that the tenant living at the property was looking to move, as the damp and water leaks were too much for them to continue living there. He explained that the repairs would be costly if this took long to resolve. The resident requested a timescale for when this would be resolved.
An acknowledgement was sent to the resident from the landlord on 25 March 2021, which explained that a stage one complaint investigation had commenced and that it would provide a response for this within 15 working days, updating him if this was taking longer.
On 26 March 2021, the landlord emailed one of its contractors to request timescales on how long the roofing job to investigate for water leaks into the property that required scaffolding would take, as this was affecting the resident, for which the contractor made an internal request for an update on the same day.
Another series of emails was circulated internally by the landlord on 29 to 30 March 2021, with the contractor copied in, which requested confirmation about the water leaks into the resident’s property, whether this was in relation to the roof, and a timeline for the completion of any necessary work.
On 31 March 2021, an internal email was circulated by the contractor explaining that a site visit had been made to the property on 30 March 2021, and some staining was noticed on the walls. This had been ongoing for some time since the last scaffold was erected by another contractor about six years before. The flat above was also checked and there was a similar problem. It was not possible to gain access to the top floor flat. It was agreed with the resident that scaffolding would be erected to the front, gable and rear to check the roof and parapet wall. The resident was happy with this. It was noted that the damp patch only happened when it was raining, so the best course of action was to erect scaffolding, and the resident as well as the landlord would be kept updated.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident, and it explained that it had been informed of the above site visit. It outlined the contractor’s above findings during the visit, and it stated that the scaffold to check the roof and parapet wall that had been agreed with him would be erected from the week of 12 April 2021.
Several internal emails were circulated by the landlord on 15 April 2021 with regard to updating the resident about the inspection that was to be carried out at the property, as he had queried why the scaffold for this had not yet been put up. There was a concern and query raised internally regarding why the resident had not been updated, and the importance of communication as there had previously been bank holidays. Although the contractor then confirmed to the landlord that it had told the resident that the scaffold would be erected on 19 April 2021, and that the roof inspection would take place on 20 April 2021, with which he was happy.
The landlord’s records showed that it attended a report of water leaking onto the electrics in the resident’s property on the same day that this was reported on 18 April 2021.
The contractor circulated an email internally on 19 April 2021 to explain that a plumber had been spoken to about a water leak that the resident reported to the landlord on 18 April 2021, and they confirmed that the leak was not from the roof and that this was being caused by the flat above. The contractor stated that scaffolding was being erected on 19 April 2021as agreed, and the roof would be looked at again for any leaks.
The contractor circulated another email internally on 20 April 2021 to advise, that following a visit to the property to carry out an inspection, there was no water leak found from the front of the roof that would affect the resident’s flat. The leak from the flat above was being rectified, and the resident had been informed of this, with the contractor agreeing to take internal photographs of the flats to indicate what leaks were happening or any living conditions that could cause condensation. Although they confirmed that a roofer would attend on 22 April 2021 to repair a leak on the top floor to the rear of the building, and to clean out the gutters.
A further internal email was circulated by the landlord on 29 April 2021, explaining that the resident had emailed it to request an update on his case and had mentioned that nothing had been done. However, the landlord explained in the internal email that this did not seem to be the case from the above correspondence, and so it requested that the resident was updated on any outstanding issues.
The landlord also recorded on 29 April 2021 that it had received a report of loose or crumbling brickwork on the external walls of the resident’s property resulting in damp affecting the property, which it attended on 14 June 2021. This Service then contacted the landlord on 6 May 2021 at the resident’s request to ask it to respond his complaint about its handling of his reports of water leaks in accordance with its complaints procedure.
On 18 May 2021, the contractor emailed the landlord and provided a breakdown of the dates when the resident’s property was attended following several reports of leaks, starting with the first report on 25 January 2021 for a leaking toilet which was completed by renewing the WC pan on 8 February 2021. Another report was made on 8 February 2021, which explained that the leak had not been resolved. A site visit was made, which revealed that there was a leak from the cold-water supply of the bath tap from the flat above, and that this was leaking into the flat below. This was later rectified by replacing the bath taps.
On 11 February 2021, the contractor stated that there was another report by the resident advising that there was still a leak at the property, and another job was raised on 16 February 2021 for a leak from the flat above, which was repaired via a new balcony rainwater pipe on 24 February 2021. There was then a further leak on 25 February 2021, which the contractor attended and investigated. This was found to be coming from the kitchen waste pipe connected to the rear of the external soil stack, which the resident was advised not to use until this was repaired.
A repair for the above leak was then planned for 12 March 2021, according to the contractor, and the resident of the flat above was written to with an appointment, which was attended by the contractor. The upstairs resident, however, refused access and was abusive to staff.
As the contractor said that they knew that this was affecting the resident’s property below, another appointment was re-booked for 7 April 2021, and the resident of the flat above was notified of this via letter by the contractor. The contractor was again not allowed access by the upstairs resident on 7 April 2021. The repair was therefore cancelled, and staff received threatening emails from the resident in the other flat they tried to gain access to.
Shortly after this, the contractor stated that some arrangements were made for a new repair to the leak from the upstairs flat to be carried out, and this was booked for 20 May 2021, with the upstairs resident notified by letter for the third time. The contractor explained that they understood how the leaks were frustrating, however these were not connected, and each had to be investigated to remedy the problem. The contractor apologised for the ongoing leaks at the resident’s property, and explained that there were times when the upstairs resident had not allowed access or had been abusive to staff. The contractor advised that they would monitor the repair and update the parties on the outcome on 20 May 2021.
An internal email was circulated by the landlord on 18 May 2021, following this Service’s above correspondence, explaining that it did not look like the resident had raised a formal final stage complaint about its handling of the prolonged ongoing leaks. It was therefore advised that a stage one complaint response would need to be sent to him, but more information was required in respect of the leak before this could be done.
The landlord emailed the contractor on 19 May 2021 to acknowledge the email that the contractor sent to it on 18 May 2021 about the various reports that had been raised, and the above explanation was provided as to why it had taken the contractor some time to resolve the leak.
On 19 May 2021, an internal email was circulated advising that there was an appointment to repair the leak scheduled for 20 May 2021, and that an outcome from the appointment would have to be provided before a final stage complaint response could be sent off to the resident.
On 24 May 2021, the contractor emailed the landlord to inform it that the repair scheduled for 20 May 2021 had been completed, as the upstairs resident had given access and the kitchen waste pipe, which was leaking when used, had been repaired and the issue resolved.
On 25 May 2021, a final stage complaint response was provided to the resident by the landlord regarding the water leak issue from the property above. He was advised that the contractor had issues getting access to the property above in order to rectify the matter. The landlord advised that the leaks were not connected, and each had to be investigated to remedy the problem. The contractor had confirmed, however, that all repairs associated with the water leak had now been completed, and the landlord apologised for the ongoing leaks at his property.
The resident nevertheless made contact with the landlord again on 13 July 2021 to report another leak at the property. He explained that, following assurances from the landlord that the water leak from the above flat had been resolved, builders had attended his property to start repairs on all the damage caused by the leaks there. The resident further explained that the builders had then discovered more water running down the bathroom wall from one of the properties above, for which he requested the landlord’s immediate attention.
Several internal emails were circulated on 14 July 2021 by the landlord requesting staff call the resident regarding the final stage complaint letter sent to him, and also investigate the issues of water leaks into the property and feedback the findings. There was additionally a request made by it for the property to be inspected.
Another internal email circulated by the landlord on 16 July 2021 showed that its inspection of the property and the upstairs flats on 15 July 2021 had found there was still water coming into the resident’s flat from above. This also found that there were repairs required to the hopper head at the resident’s property, and that the previous works to the toilet and kitchen waste in the upstairs flat appeared incomplete.
The landlord advised that it would contact the contractor to find out when they intended to complete the repairs. An inspection of another flat additionally disclosed that there was mould on the bathroom ceiling and cracked tiles to the end of the bath, with repairs required to ensure that both waste pipes were watertight. It was stated by the landlord that a work order would be raised for these repairs shortly.
On 21 July 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s latest letter, and it explained that arrangements had been made for a staff member to attend the property on 15 July 2021. It stated that they had reported that a fault was discovered with a rainwater hopper, and that an appropriate repair to this had been raised to be undertaken by the contractor.
A repair request was raised by the landlord on 16 July 2021 for the hopper head outside the resident’s property to be moved over, as currently the water was not cascading correctly and damaging the brickwork there, and a target date of 27 August 2021 was set to carry out repairs to this. The landlord described its contractor as having inspected this on 6 October 2021, but that they had found no faults with the hopper and instead referred to the issue as being the waste pipe being tapped into the rainwater pipe, for which a plumber was required to run the waste pipe to the drain. It therefore stated that it had instructed its repair contractor to return to address this.
The resident subsequently complained to this Service of ongoing water leaks at his property up to the further flooding in the bathroom there in July 2021, which was reported to the landlord on 13 July 2021, and that he stated that he had not received a response to. He stated that the damage to the property from the leaks had made this uninhabitable, led his tenant to give notice to end their tenancy, prevented him from advertising for a new tenant until all of the repairs were carried out by the insurers. The resident explained that, as this had caused him financial loss by being unable to relet his property until the work was completed and then having to use a letting agent when this was ready for a new tenant, he requested compensation towards this.

Assessment and findings

Agreement, Policies and Procedures

The resident’s lease and the landlord’s repairs policy document confirm that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and common areas of the property’s building, including the roof, external pipes, drainage and pipework.
The landlord’s leaseholder’s handbook states that it must insure the property against risks, and this buildings insurance covers the leaseholder’s home. The leaseholder can claim for damage to the inside of the property caused by incidents including escaped water.
The leaseholder’s handbook’s repairs responsibility table shows that the landlord is responsible for carrying out repairs for burst or leaking water, waste, soil stack and rainwater pipes and gutters.
The landlord’s contractors carry out repair work 24 hours a day in accordance with its leaseholder’s handbook. The landlord has three categories of repairs. Emergencies are to be attended within two hours, urgent repairs such as burst or leaking pipes are to be attended within one working day and water leaks through the roof within three to seven working days, and other non-urgent repairs can be completed within 30 calendar days.

Scope of Investigation

While the resident has requested compensation from the landlord for his financial losses as a result of being unable to relet his property and having to use a letting agent to obtain a new tenant there, this is outside the scope of this investigation. This is because this Service does not have the authority or expertise to determine the landlord’s liability for the resident’s losses or to award him damages for these in the way that a court or insurer might. This investigation is instead limited to determining whether the landlord’s handling of and communication regarding the resident’s water leak reports accorded with his lease and its policies, procedures and other obligations, and to considering compensation for any distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to him.

The landlord’s handling of and communication regarding outstanding repairs for water leaks into the resident’s leasehold property

Following the resident’s reports of water leaks at his property to the landlord on 20 January 2021, he attributed the leaks to a degradation of the building’s structure that it later attended his property for. On 25 March 2021, he then informed it that he attributed these to a leak from the building’s roof, and the landlord subsequently arranged to have scaffolding erected by a contractor to investigate the leak.
The landlord’s above leaseholder’s handbook sets out that the landlord aims to attend to urgent burst or leaking pipes within one working day, urgent water leaks through the roof within three to seven working days, and non-urgent repairs within 30 calendar days. The evidence provided by the parties’ records and correspondence demonstrates that the landlord attended the resident’s property within one working day, following his reports of water leaks to it on 18 April 2021, and within three to seven working days after his leak reports of 8 February and 25 March 2021. These attendances were in accordance with the timescales in the handbook and were therefore appropriate.
Additionally, the landlord demonstrated that it complied with the resident’s lease and its repairs policy document and leaseholder’s handbook mentioned above with regard to its obligation to repair and maintain the structure and common areas of the resident’s property’s building. It did so when it investigated the leaks at the property on the following occasions. The landlord inspected this and the flat above on 30 March 2021, the building’s roof on 20 April 2021, repaired the upstairs flat’s leaking kitchen waste pipe on 20 May 2021, and inspected the property’s exterior on 14 June 2021, the property and the flats above on 15 July 2021 and the property’s exterior again on 6 October 2021.
The landlord took the above action to investigate the water leaks at the resident’s property as part of its obligation to carry out structural and communal repairs, and repairs to neighbouring properties, when it responded to the resident’s above leak reports as the leaks affected his property. This was reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord was responsive to the initial reports, as well as that it complied with its obligation to remedy the ongoing issue with leaks. This is because the landlord was responsible for the building’s structure and common areas and their maintenance.
The landlord also provided evidence in the form of its records and correspondence at the time to demonstrate that, during the process of investigating the water leaks affecting the resident’s property, there were issues with accessing the building’s top floor flat on 30 March 2021. It additionally had difficulties in receiving access to the property above his flat on 12 March and 7 April 2021. This contributed to delays in the landlord investigating and resolving the leaks, as its appointments to do so had to be cancelled on the last two occasions due to the upstairs neighbour’s refusal of them.
Furthermore, the landlord provided evidence from its correspondence to show that its contractor advised it on 18 May 2021 that the ongoing water leaks that were affecting the resident’s property, which they attended above, were not connected. It was therefore necessary, in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary, for the landlord to investigate each leak there separately, and to carry out the individual repairs each time a report was made by the resident. The landlord nevertheless did not comply with its leaseholder’s handbook’s obligations for it to respond to all of his reports of the leaks within the handbook’s timescales.
This is because, contrary to the leaseholder’s handbook, the landlord delayed responding to the resident’s water leak reports on the following occasions. It was not recorded as having responded to his report of 20 January 2021, was at least three working days late for the report of 25 January 2021, was at least two working days late for the report of 11 February 2021, and it was not noted as responding to his report of 10 March 2021. The landlord also delayed responding to the resident’s external structural repair reports of 29 April 2021 by 16 calendar days, and it not only delayed scheduling the rainwater hopper repair that it found on 15 July 2021 by 13 calendar days, but there is no evidence that it completed the waste pipe repair that it subsequently found for this.
This was inappropriate, as numerous reports were made by the resident above with regard to the damage that the ongoing leaks were having on his property. In view of this, the landlord should have ordered and arranged the repair work as quickly as possible, as per its above leaseholder’s handbook’s timescales. In this instance, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports in a timely manner or not at all on the above occasions. The resident also had to wait an unreasonable time for the landlord to complete the waste pipe repair following his last report to it, which may still be outstanding. This is a failure, as the landlord did not prioritise these repair works, and its poor communication with him about them would have worsened his concerns.
Throughout the internal communications by the landlord, there was contact by it with the contractor to arrange further inspections of the resident’s property’s building in order to resolve the leaks there. The resident should have been kept aware of this by it throughout his case, including at the point that it became clear to it on 15 April 2021 about the lack of updates to the resident, following a concern with this raised by its staff. Nevertheless, the landlord did not take action to ensure that the communication failure identified by its staff was rectified. This was inappropriate, as it failed to provide responses to him in relation to the resident’s requests for updates throughout. The landlord also did not take the opportunity its complaints process to acknowledge that it did not communicate effectively, be fair and put things right for him.
Furthermore, the landlord did not consider offering the resident anything other than its apology to him of 25 May 2021 for the ongoing leaks at his property, such as compensation or any other remedy to the resident, for its above repair delays and for not keeping him informed following his requests for updates on the repairs. In addition to this, there was no action taken by it to avoid further repair delays or to review its communication with residents during the complaints procedure in order to prevent this from happening again in the future.
The landlord’s actions in respect of its delays and lack of communication were unreasonable from the time that the resident initially raised concerns about leaks in January 2021. This is because the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident in seeking to resolve the ongoing water leaks at his property were significantly more than would be reasonably expected due to the landlord’s delays and poor communication.
The evidence provided from the parties’ records and correspondence also showed that the resident made requests to the landlord on 20 January and 10 March 2021 regarding claiming on its insurance following the damage caused to his property. In accordance with its above leaseholder’s handbook, the responsibility for insuring the property’s building against risks was with the landlord, for which the resident could claim for damage to the inside of the property caused by incidents including for escaped water.
It is therefore concerning that there is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with its buildings insurance details, or that it responded to his requests for these. Although it is noted that he reported that repairs were subsequently being carried out to his property’s interior by insurers. It was nevertheless unreasonable that there was no record of the landlord having provided the resident with such details. This was also inappropriate because the resident reported that he had to take measures to mitigate the damage to the property, when he had to install double radiators, put in extra vents in windows, and have vents cleaned out to prevent the damp and mould at his own cost.
It is expected, moreover, that the landlord should provide its liability insurance details to the resident or direct him to its insurers to enable him to claim for the financial losses that he additionally reported incurring due to the ongoing water leaks at his property in order to put things right. This is due to him informing it throughout his case of the likelihood of his tenant at the property ending their tenancy as a result of the repair delays to the leaks there and the resulting conditions. This meant that the resident’s subsequent reports that this cost him financially since he could not relet his property at the time and would then have to use a letting agent to do so were to be expected.
The resident was therefore put to distress, inconvenience, time and trouble by the landlord’s repair delays and lack of communication in dealing with the damage caused to the property. As he was left in a difficult position, it is reasonable that the landlord should have offered him compensation in recognition of these failings on its part, as well as directing him to make a liability insurance claim to it or its insurers for his financial losses.
Given that the waste pipe repairs at the resident’s property may also still be outstanding, the landlord should have offered the resident compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to him by its delayed and outstanding work and poor communication regarding the repair work. It has therefore been ordered below to pay him compensation of £450. This is in line with the range of compensation recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance for considerable failures that have not had a permanent impact on the resident, including by him having repeatedly having to chase responses, have an unreasonable level of involvement, and experience repair delays over a considerable period of time.
The landlord has also been ordered below to put right its above failings in the resident’s case by, if it has not done so already, contacting him to arrange for it to complete repairs to the waste pipe at his property, and providing him with details to enable him to submit a liability insurance claim to it or its insurers for his financial losses. It has additionally been recommended to review its communication processes for updating its leaseholders on its structural, communal and neighbouring repairs affecting their properties, and its staff’s training needs in relation to their repairs communication, application of its leaseholder’s handbook’s repairing obligations and remedies.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of and communication regarding outstanding repairs for water leaks into the resident’s leasehold property.

Reasons

The landlord did not provide the resident with updates regarding its investigations about the water leaks at his property, despite this directly affecting him, who had made contact with the landlord to request for updates. There was substantial internal communication indicating that the issue was being discussed by the landlord, but the resident was not kept updated on this.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord has completed the waste pipe repair at the resident’s property, which may still remain outstanding. Considering the amount of damage and inconvenience caused to the resident, and its previous delays in responding to his leak reports, the landlord should have responded to him about this to ensure that the issue which had been ongoing for some time was resolved.
The landlord did not take the opportunity to use its complaints procedure to provide any remedies to the resident for its repair delays and poor communication other than an apology. There is also no indication to show that there were lessons learnt by it from these failings, or that a review of how the landlord communicates with residents had been undertaken.
The landlord did not provide the resident with its liability insurance details, when he reported that the ongoing leaks at his property were likely to cause him financial losses and after he had requested its buildings insurance details, so that he could claim on its insurance for the losses caused to him.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £450 compensation within four weeks in recognition of the delayed and outstanding work to his property its poor communication, and any resulting distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to him by these failings.
2. Contact the resident within four weeks to arrange for it to complete repairs to the waste pipe at his property, if it has not done yet done so.
3. Contact the resident within four weeks to provide him with its liability insurance details to enable him to make a claim to it or its insurers for his financial losses, if it has not done so already.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its communication processes for updating its leaseholders on its structural, communal and neighbouring repairs affecting their properties.
1. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their repairs communication, application of its leaseholder’s handbook’s repairing obligations and remedies, to seek to ensure that these are considered in every case, where relevant. This should include the consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.