Birmingham City Council (202113825)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113825

Birmingham City Council

23 December 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s bathroom floor.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a low rise flat owned by the landlord. The resident has a hearing impairment.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the property in good repair.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of items supplied by it, including floors. It says that it will complete routine repairs within 30 days of them being reported.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. It says that it will respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 11 June 2021, the resident reported that his bathroom floor tiles were cracked and loose. The landlord raised a repair order with its contractor with a target date of 23 July 2021. The repair notes stated that the resident wore a hearing aid and that the contractor should ‘knock loud’. The contractor made an appointment with the resident to attend on 7 July 2021.
The resident made an online complaint to the landlord on 7 July 2021 saying that the contractor had not attended. He said that he had received a text satisfaction survey stating that the repair had been completed but it had not been. The resident said that he had called the contractor and been told that someone was on their way but no one had arrived. He said he had stayed in all day and was upset and disappointed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 8 July 2021 and said that it would respond within 15 working days. The landlord contacted its contractor to find out why the repair had not been attended.
The landlord provided its response to the resident’s stage one complaint on 14 July 2021. It apologised that its contractor had missed the appointment and explained that the plumber had been diverted to an emergency repair. It apologised for not notifying the resident at the time and advised that the repair had been rescheduled for 28 July 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 July 2021 saying that the contractor had not attended the appointment. He said that he had again received a text survey to record his satisfaction with the completed repair but the job had not been completed. The landlord apologised to the resident and made enquiries with its contractor.
Later that day, the landlord emailed the resident saying that its contractor had confirmed that the repair had been completed and had provided photographic evidence. The resident reiterated that no one had attended his property and asked to see the photographs. The landlord responded saying that it had escalated his complaint and would respond by 25 August 2021. On 29 July 2021, the resident again asked to see the photographs that the contractor had provided.
The landlord asked the contractor to check which address it had attended and told the contractor it would send the photographs to the resident. On 30 July 2021 the contractor told the landlord that it had spoken to the operative who had confirmed that he had attended and completed the repair. The landlord then asked the resident to provide it with photographs of his bathroom floor. The resident sent photographs later that day which the landlord subsequently sent to its contractor. The landlord advised the resident that the photographs provided by the contractor might be included with its stage two response if appropriate.
On 1 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord saying that the response date for his stage two complaint had passed. On 6 September 2021, the landlord replied apologising for the delay, explaining it was due to annual leave, and advising that it was waiting for a response from its contractor.
On 13 September 2021 the contractor told the landlord that it had investigated, and confirmed again that the repair had been completed. It said that the residents photographs showed further tiles had lifted and that it had raised another order to replace them and also reseal the toilet pedestal. The contractor’s note on the works order says it left a voicemail message for the resident giving and appointment of 7 October 2021. The order was subsequently cancelled and the landlord presumed that the cancellation was due to access not being gained.
The landlord provided its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 16 September 2021. It said that:
1. The initial repair to the bathroom floor had been completed and apologised for the quality of the repair.
2. A new order had been raised to replace further tiles and reseal the toilet pedestal. An appointment had been scheduled for 7 October 2021.
3. It apologised for the delay in responding and inconvenience caused.
The resident replied the same day reiterating that the first repair had not been completed and said that he had not reported any issues with his toilet pedestal. On 17 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord saying that he had not seen the proof provided by the contractor. He said that he had lost trust in the contractor and felt upset and stressed. The landlord replied acknowledging his dissatisfaction but advising that it had fully investigated his complaint and that it was now closed.

Events following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The resident contacted this Service advising that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling and that his repair had not been completed.
Following the Ombudsman’s evidence request, the landlord raised another order for the bathroom floor tiles on 3 February 2022 with a target completion date of 14 February 2022. As of 23 February 2022, the order remained outstanding and the landlord contacted the contractor for an update. The contractor said that it left a voicemail message for the resident booking an appointment for 28 February 2022. The contractor subsequently told the landlord that it had been unable to gain access and had cancelled the order on 3 March 2022 as the resident had not responded to the card left.
Between 23 February and 7 March 2022, the landlord attempted to contact the resident including leaving voicemails on his mobile phone, cards at the property and hand delivering a letter requiring access. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 9 March 2022 and inspected the bathroom floor tiles. Internal emails seen by this service confirmed the landlords acknowledgement that the resident is deaf and needed a text notification of any visits. The landlord updated its system records accordingly and raised a further order to replace the defective tiles. An appointment was made with the resident by email for 18 March 2022. The resident has confirmed that the repair was completed.

Assessment and findings

Repair to bathroom floor

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s initial report of repairs needed to their bathroom floor. It raised an order for a routine repair in line with its repairing obligations and its repairs policy.
However, the repair appointment was not attended by the landlord’s contractor. The contractor later confirmed that the job had not been attended as the operative had been diverted to an emergency. It is not clear why the resident received the satisfaction survey given that the appointment did not go ahead. However, him receiving it caused confusion.
The landlord acknowledged that the appointment had not been kept within its stage one response to the complaint, and said that the resident should have been notified at the time. It apologised and its contractor arranged another appointment. Whilst the missed appointment was a service failure, the landlords acknowledgement and apology was a reasonable response under the circumstances.
Information about the resident’s hearing impairment had been recorded on the initial order raised on 11 June 2021 which shows that both the landlord and contractor were aware of it. This service has seen no evidence that the landlord or contractor had considered the need for any service adjustments beyond the advice to “knock loud”. It would have been reasonable for the landlord and contractor to have considered whether service adjustments were needed.
As the original appointment was not kept, the landlord subsequently raised a further job for 28 July 2021. However, as detailed above, on that morning, the resident contacted the landlord again to advise that nobody had attended. From the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concern about the contractor not attending the appointment on 28 July 2021. It contacted the contractor on the day the matter was raised by the resident and obtained evidence confirming that the repair had been completed. This was a proportionate response to the resident’s concerns at that time.
Given the resident’s repeated assertion that the repair had not been done, the landlord appropriately asked the resident for further evidence. The photographs provided by the resident were referred to the contractor resulting in a decision to raise a further repair order being raised to replace the tiles and reseal the toilet pedestal. It is unclear how the contractor reached the conclusion that the toilet pedestal needed resealing based on the photographs and absence of any mention of the toilet pedestal previously. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this when responding to the resident’s complaint; that it did not was a missed opportunity to try to resolve the resident’s concerns.
Within the stage two response of 16 September 2021, the landlord advised that a further appointment had been scheduled for 7 October 2021 so that the tiles could be repaired and the toilet pedestal sealed. It was appropriate to arrange a further job given the photographs that had been provided by the resident and the disagreement as to whether or not the repair of the floor tiles had been carried out.
However, the repair scheduled for 7 October 2021 did not take place. The landlord presumed that access had not been gained but this Service has not seen any evidence to confirm this or give an alternative explanation. Given the landlord’s previous acknowledgements of the delays in completing the repair, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the reason for the repair not being completed. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether it needed to take any action in order to fulfil its repair obligations at this stage.
The Ombudsman’s contact with the landlord in February 2022 resulted in another repair order being raised. However, the repair was not completed within the target timescale and this service has seen no evidence that the landlord investigated the reason for this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so given the already considerable delay in completing the repair.
It was appropriate that the landlord intervened directly to engage with the resident and gain access to inspect the floor tiles. However there had been a significant elapse of time from the resident’s initial report, the resident had told the landlord that the contractor had not attended three previous appointments, and the landlord was aware of the resident’s hearing impairment. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have intervened sooner.
The landlord’s intervention resulted in a further appointment being scheduled for 18 March 2022. The resident has since confirmed that the repair has been completed; however, from the evidence provided to this Service, it is not clear whether this was on 18 March 2022. Nevertheless, from the evidence that is available, the repair to the bathroom floor was outstanding for a period of over nine months, which is significantly outside of the landlord’s repair policy timescale. The landlord should now take steps to put things right with the resident, and to ensure that a similar error does not occur in the future.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident’s complaint within its 15 working day timescale. It explained why its contractor had not attended the first repair appointment. But it did not address the reason for the resident receiving a repair satisfaction survey and no evidence has been provided to show that the landlord investigated this aspect of the complaint.
The resident asked on three occasions to see the photographs that the contractor provided to the landlord as evidence that the repair had been completed. Although the landlord told its contractor that it would send them to the resident, it did not do so. Subsequently, the landlord advised the resident that the photographs may be included in its stage two response. But it did not include the photographs, nor was there any reference to the resident’s requests for them in its response letter. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sent the photographs to the resident as it would have demonstrated how the landlord had reached its conclusion that the repair had been completed.
No evidence has been provided that suggests the landlord or contractor compared the photographs taken by contractor with those taken by the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this as part of its complaint investigation given that the issue of a repair taking place on 28 July 2021 was in dispute. It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to comment on why the order included resealing the toilet pedestal when this had not been raised by the resident.
The landlord’s stage two response to the resident’s complaint was not sent within its policy timescales and caused the resident to chase up a response. Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it would have been appropriate for it to notify the resident if it was not able to respond within timescale and give an explanation. This service would expect the landlord to have arrangements in place to fulfil its policy commitments when its staff are taking annual leave. Therefore, the explanation that the delay was due to the complaint officer’s leave was not reasonable.
It is also noted that neither the stage one or stage two response set out what stage of the complaints procedure the resident was at, or that the correspondence was a formal complaint response. Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code provides that the complaint stage should be made clear within landlord’s complaint responses. As such, the landlord should now review its processes to ensure that correspondence sent as part of the complaints procedure is clearly marked.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the bathroom floor tiles.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not complete the repair within its policy timescales. In some instances it did not fully investigate the reasons for the repair not being completed at the arranged appointment, and did not intervene to ensure access was gained until nine months after the resident’s initial report. The landlord’s handling of the repair resulted in significant delay in its completion and caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord did not fully investigate the resident’s complaint. It did not address the specific issues raised by the resident in its responses, and did not meet its policy requirements in its stage two response. This resulted in avoidable delay in completing the repair and caused the resident inconvenience and frustration. Further, the landlord’s complaint responses did not meet the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £350 comprised of:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the repair.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
2. Write to the resident and:
  1. Apologise for the failures identified in the report.
  2. Explain how it reached its conclusion regarding the toilet pedestal needing to be resealed.
  3. Include the photographs taken by its contractor on 28 July 2021.
3. Ensure its complaint responses comply with the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
4. Provide this Service with evidence that it has complied with these orders.