Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Birmingham City Council (202106463)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106463

Birmingham City Council

29 August 2023

 

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 response to the resident’s reports about a leak in an airing cupboard.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy commenced in 2012. The landlord informs this Service that no known vulnerabilities are recorded. The resident says she has a disability, and the landlord’s repairs records refer to the resident as being disabled and her requiring time to get to the door to let people in.
  2. At the time of the complaint, after an informal stage the landlord operated a 2 stage complaint procedure, where it aimed to response at stage 1 within 15 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days.

Summary of events

  1. The resident says that a leak in the airing cupboard first started in 2018. She links this with damp and mould issues that have occurred in the airing cupboard, bathroom and hallway, such as tiles falling off the bathroom wall and damage to skirting. She says that the issue resulted in many belongings being damaged by the mould and thrown away. She says that at first the landlord thought the leak was in the bathroom, and she attempted to report that the damp affected the airing cupboard too. She says that there was a breakdown in communication and call handlers did not take down repairs details correctly. She says that the leak was not rectified and damp and mould issues continued. She says stress and frustration with the landlord’s handling led to her appointing a solicitor who made a legal claim.
  2. The landlord’s repairs records show that a water leak associated with the airing cupboard was reported in April 2018, and that damp and mould associated with the airing cupboard was reported in June and July 2020.
  3. On 9 August 2021, a further repair was raised for the leak in the airing cupboard. The repair subsequently became the subject of a letter before action for statutory nuisance under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Following this, a works order was raised on 17 November 2021 for repairs to abate the nuisance.  This included a repair for a leak to an underground pipe in a hall boiler cupboard, which was completed on 1 December 2021.
  4. The resident says that the landlord assured her that they had found the issue, but the damp came back and it was apparent the leak was still ongoing. On 10 December 2021, the landlord’s repairs records show that an emergency repair was raised for a leak related to a boiler, heating pipes and radiator. This was completed the same day, but the resident says a gas engineer attended rather than a plumber and so they were unable to rectify the leak.
  5. On 14 December 2021, a 1 day repair was raised for the leak which was noted to be related to the internal water supply and the airing cupboard. The resident’s account says this was attended the following day at 11.30am when she was not in, rather than a timeframe of 1 to 6pm she was informed of and would be in for.
  6. On 15 December 2021, a further repair was raised for the airing cupboard leak. The landlord’s records show this as cancelled. The resident’s account says she was told that an operative would attend in 2 hours, which did not happen, while the landlord’s records show the repair was raised as a 1 day repair. The resident says that an operative subsequently attended the following day, without gaining access, as she had no prior knowledge of the appointment.
  7. On 17 December 2021, a further 1 day repair was raised for the airing cupboard leak. The same day, the resident complained to the landlord. She recently had some work carried out under a section 82 repair, and the pipe that caused the leak had begun to leak again. She reported the issue on 10 December 2021 and was told an operative would be sent the same day, however it was a gas engineer who attended and not a plumber and so they were unable to attempt to rectify the leak. She reported the issue again on 14 December 2021, and was told that an operative would attend on 15 December 2021 between 1pm and 6pm, however an operative attended at 11.30am so the appointment was a no access. She reported the issue again and was told an operative would attend within 2 hours, but this did not happen. An operative then attended on 16 December 2021 without her prior knowledge, resulting in another no access. She noted that she had previously complained about the contractor and she raised concern that the quality of service had not improved.
  8. On 22 December 2021, the repair raised on 17 December 2021 was completed, according to the landlord’s records. Around this time, some separate works orders were raised for a stop tap that had an intermittent leak.
  9. On 26 January 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said an operative repaired a stop tap and completed this on 22 December 2021. It said that a new job was scheduled for 10 January 2022, which resulted in a no access, as the operative was not able to gain access to the property. It noted that the operative took photo evidence of this and left a card. It said that the repair was re-booked for 19 January 2022, where an operative attended and completed the job as there was no leak and a stop tap was working properly. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience the resident had experienced.
  10. On 1 February 2022, the resident requested escalation of the complaint. She explained that she had raised a repair for a leaking airing cupboard which was previously dealt with as a section 82 repair. She said that the Section 82 repair was carried out after 4 years and after the contractor had repeatedly failed to complete the work within a reasonable time frame. She said that she raised the repair again due to there still being a leak in the airing cupboard and said that this had now been ongoing for over a month. She said that this was not acceptable and requested for the issue to be looked into urgently. She said that she had multiple health conditions, which had been exacerbated by the stress and anxiety caused by the contractor’s failures to repair the issue. She said that comments in the complaint response were incorrect. She said that the contractor failed to attend an agreed time frame. She also said that the wrong tradesperson was sent. She asked the landlord to review the history of the case to get an idea of how long issues had been ongoing, as well as review its policy and procedures.  She restated her concern about the quality of service. She requested for the repair to be completed as soon as possible, and to be paid compensation for the anxiety and distress she had been caused.
  11. On 9 February 2022, the landlord’s complaints team arranged for a routine repair to be raised for the airing cupboard leak. The same day, it provided a final response. It said that it had spoken to its contractor, who had confirmed that the resident had been called that day to arrange an inspection by a plumber on 11 February 2022 to investigate and resolve the leak in the airing cupboard. It noted that the contractor also said that if the plumber finished their jobs for that day they would arrange to look with the intention of returning on 11 February 2022. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience the resident had experienced.
  12. On 15 February 2022, the landlord’s records report that the repair for the airing cupboard leak was completed. Following this, the landlord says there were no further reports about the leak, and repairs were subsequently raised for some replastering in the airing cupboard to make good damage resolving the leak.
  13. The resident raises dissatisfaction with the quality of service and workmanship and with being provided generic responses. She says that a leaking stop tap was a separate issue and did not relate to the airing cupboard reports. She raises concern about a lack of consistency in information provided after visits and says that the landlord refused to accept that the issue was ongoing since 2018, due in part because wrong information was recorded when repairs are reported. She raised dissatisfaction that the landlord missed appointments, turned up unannounced, sent out wrong tradespeople, and took an unreasonable length of time to complete the repair. She says that the issue affected her mental and physical health, which she feels could have been avoided if the landlord had taken the time to investigate the leak properly when it was first reported.
  14. The resident says that she has not had any more issues on the wall joining the cupboard, but she raises concern that she has had issues with mould on bathroom tiles, and that some issues continue above skirting in the hall and with the floor of the airing cupboard. She says that she had requested operatives to open up the airing cupboard area properly to check the wall but these had been ignored, and she raised concern at the landlord wasting taxpayers’ through its handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident says an airing cupboard leak was ongoing since 2018. She has previously contacted the Ombudsman about issues with tiling and flooring in her bathroom. The complaint the resident made to the landlord and referred to this Service concerned the reported recurrence of the leak in the airing cupboard, after a repair done around December 2021. This report therefore focuses on what happened after a most recent report in August 2021. This is line with the Ombudsman’s expectation for complaints to be raised to a landlord and referred to the Ombudsman in a timely manner. If the resident has further complaints about her landlord, she has the option to progress these through her landlord’s complaint procedure and to refer them to the Ombudsman when she has received a final response.
  2. The resident has said that the issues affected her mental and physical health and caused damage to belongings. The Ombudsman’s approach to complaints is set out by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and Paragraph 42 (g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for damage to health or possessions. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case – which this investigation goes on to do.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak in an airing cupboard

  1. The landlord is reasonably responsible for leaking pipework in the resident’s home. The repair policy provided is unclear about the completion timeframe for this, however The Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994 says “leaking from water or heating pipe, tank or cistern” should be resolved in 1 working day. The evidence shows that the leak was not repaired until 15 February 2022. This was 2 months from December 2021 when the resident reported the recurrence of the leak and complained, and 6 months after she had reported the issue in August 2021. This was too long.
  2. The resident raised dissatisfaction with the recurrence of the leak 2 weeks after a repair to resolve it on 1 December 2021. She also raised concern with handling of reports between 10 and 16 December 2021. The landlord did not investigate the original repair. The landlord should have considered the post-inspection process for the repair, particularly given the repair was intended to abate statutory nuisance under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The landlord also did not investigate the service the resident experienced from 10 December 2021 when she reported the recurrence of the leak. The landlord only mentioned events from 22 December 2021 and its main focus was action for the leak. The landlord should have assessed the service the resident had experienced. The resident also confirms that the focus of the stage 1 response, a stop tap, did not relate to the airing cupboard leak and was a separate issue, so the initial action did not appropriately address the issue.
  3. The resident raises concern about repairs being wrongly raised and she said a gas engineer attended rather than a plumber. This seems to be because the repair raised on 10 December 2021 related the leak to the boiler, heating pipes and radiator. The landlord would be expected to raise the repair for the leak correctly, particularly given its existing awareness of the issue, but it is recognised that errors can happen. However, the landlord would be expected to investigate reported errors and review its staff training needs. The resident’s complaint should have prompted the landlord to quality assess the handling of her report on 10 December 2021 and review if anything should have been done differently when raising the repair. This did not happen.
  4. The resident said that for an appointment on 15 December 2021, she was told an operative would attend from 1 to 6pm, but they attended at 11.30am instead so did not gain access. The resident then said that she was not given prior notice when an operative visited on 16 December 2021 and again did not gain access. The landlord should have investigated these, given it was alleged that the handling of the appointments was causing the repairs delays. This did not happen.
  5. The landlord’s records say it repaired the issue on 1 December 2021. The stage 1 says that a repair was completed on 22 December 2021. The stage 1 says that another repair was completed on 19 January 2022. The resident escalated the complaint on 1 February 2022 as the repair was not completed. The landlord and its records say that the repair was completed on 15 February 2022. The landlord should aim to complete repairs right first time, but there were at least 4 repairs for the issue. The complexity of a repair may mean that resolving it first time may not always be possible, but the landlord should have better acknowledged there were multiple repairs and established why. This did not happen.
  6. The landlord informs this Service that the resident has no vulnerabilities recorded, however it is evident that when she has raised repairs, she has informed the landlord that she is disabled and that she is slow getting to the door when contractors visit. The landlord should record resident vulnerabilities centrally so that the service it provides to its vulnerable customers can be adjusted where necessary. It is not evident why this has not been done in this case.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the airing cupboard leak was not satisfactory. While the landlord rightly focused on trying to resolve the leak, its stage 1 response shows that initial actions were focused on a stop tap which it is not evident related to the airing cupboard leak. It also does not demonstrate that it satisfactorily acknowledged and addressed the delays, appointment handling and multiple repairs seen in the case. This is not satisfactory and leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s handling in respect to this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. This Service notes that issues with the landlord’s complaint handling and compensation approach have been highlighted in the Ombudsman’s January 2023 special report and the Regulator of Social Housing’s May 2023 regulatory notice.
  2. After the resident complained on 17 December 2021, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 26 January 2022. This exceeded the 15 working day timeframe for stage 1 by 11 working days. The landlord provided an apology for delays and inconvenience, but it was unspecific whether this for the complaint or repair delays, or both. After the resident requested escalation on 1 February 2022, the landlord responded 13 days sooner than the 20 working day deadline at stage 2. This went some way to make up for the delay at stage 1, but the landlord should have more clearly acknowledged that delay.
  3. The landlord’s responses do not demonstrate that it carried out any significant investigation of the complaint the resident raised. There was no investigation of service issues noted in the substantive complaint above. The stage 1 response set out actions for a stop tap, however the resident confirms that this issue was separate to the airing cupboard leak, so the stage 1 response failed to adequately understand and address the complaint. The stage 2 response only confirmed an appointment. It did not review the complaint; address the resident’s escalation reasons; or acknowledge the stage 1 response’s failure to . This was not appropriate.
  4. The resident requested compensation in her escalation request, but again the landlord did not address this. The landlord should consider compensation when responding to a complaint, including for distress and inconvenience, which was highlighted in the Ombudsman’s special report. The repair had been ongoing for 6 months by the final response, which will have been frustrating for the resident. The Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994 also says “leaking from water or heating pipe, tank or cistern” should be resolved in 1 working day, otherwise compensation of £10 plus £2 per day may be applicable (up to a maximum of £50). Given the leak took 2 months from December 2021 and 6 months from August 2021 to repair, the landlord should have considered if the issue was a qualifying repair and eligible for compensation under the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. An effective complaints procedure uses complaints to investigate issues with service and to take steps to improve this where necessary. An effective complaints procedure should also consider appropriate remedies for delays and issues a resident has experienced with repairs and a complaint itself. The landlord’s complaint handling will have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord and caused additional distress to her. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. Following our January 2023 special report, the landlord has confirmed it is taking steps in respect to its complaint handling and compensation approach, and so no orders are made for these.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in:
    1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a leak in an airing cupboard.
    2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord does not demonstrate that it satisfactorily acknowledged and addressed the delays, appointment handling and multiple repairs seen in the case.
  2. The landlord did not satisfactorily acknowledge delays in its stage 1 response, did not satisfactorily investigate service issues that the resident raised, and did not satisfactorily identify issues with its complaint handling and demonstrate any learning in respect to these.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to, within 4 weeks:
    1. apologise to the resident for the issues identified.
    2. pay the resident £500 compensation for the issues identified.
    3. arrange for senior repairs staff to inspect the current condition of the airing cupboard, hall skirting board and bathroom tiles to assess if there is an ongoing leak or if any action should be taken for these. It should then set out the outcome of its inspection in writing to the resident, and include any actions it is taking, the timeframe for these and contact details for if she has any enquiries.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to liaise with the resident to discuss recording her vulnerabilities and any service adjustments she may need.
  2. The landlord to review the issues identified at paragraph 26 and how to ensure that vulnerabilities are recorded centrally and not just in individual works orders.