Birmingham City Council (202119039)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119039

Birmingham City Council

22 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak.
2. Complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a two-bedroom house, from October 2011. The landlord is a local authority.
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. This means the landlord is responsible for maintaining the roof to prevent water entering the property.
The landlord’s repair policy, dated 2009, provides for the following categories of repairs:
1. Emergency repairs which are defined as those where there is a danger of injury or damage to the property and says it will respond within two hours.
2. Urgent repairs which are defined as those concerning the health and safety of the tenant or security of the property. It says it will respond in one, three or seven days depending on the requirements of the Right to Repair Regulations 1994.
3. Routine repairs which it aims to complete within 30 days but may extend the timescale if specialist materials or arrangements are needed.
The landlord’s tenant handbook gives an example of water leaking through a roof as an urgent repair that would be given a 3 or 7 day response.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. Its “your views procedure” says that it will respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days, whilst its tenant’s handbook says it will respond within 10 working days. Both documents say it will respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days.

Scope of investigation

Between March 2022 and October 2022, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation of the landlord’s handling of repairs and complaints under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The investigation reviewed 14 cases brought to the Ombudsman during the period, identified common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement. The report was published in January 2023 and can be viewed at Birmingham-Special-Report-FINAL-January-2023-1.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The landlord is due to publish its action plan of how it will improve its approach to repair and complaint handling within three months of that report.
The events in this case took place over the same period as some of the cases considered by the Ombudsman in that investigation. However, this case was not eligible to be investigated by the Ombudsman until after the special report had been completed. Some of the findings of the Ombudsman’s special report are relevant to this case and are referred to accordingly in this report. However, we have not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those already made to landlord in the Ombudsman’s special report.

Summary of events

The resident reported that the roof was leaking on 19 May 2021. The evidence seen shows the leak was deemed to be not affecting the electrics and could be contained for up to seven working days. The landlord raised an order with its contractor although it is not clear from the evidence seen what response timescale was given. The contractor subsequently attended but the evidence seen shows the repair was not done because scaffolding was needed to access the area of roof affected by the leak. The repair order was recorded as completed on 26 May 2021.
On 8 July 2021, the landlord raised another order for the roof leak which said that scaffolding was needed. The job was recorded as completed on 26 July 2021 and the contractor’s notes said that some roof felt had come away and been pushed back into place from within the loft.
The resident reported the roof leak again on 16 September 2021. Again, the leak was triaged as not affecting electrics and being containable for up to seven working days. The landlord raised a third repair order which was recorded as completed on 24 September 2021.
The resident made a complaint on 24 September 2021 saying that there had been a leak from the roof through the bedroom ceiling since May. He said that he had waited 30 days for it to be attended to and then was told that scaffolding was needed. The resident said that, although the felt had been put back in place, water still came in when it rained heavily. He said that an appointment had been made for that day but no one had turned up and that he had a disabled child which made scheduling difficult. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 September 2021 and said it would respond within 15 working days.
After making enquiries with its contractor, the landlord provided its stage one response on 15 October 2021. It said that:
1. The contractor had attended on 26 May 2021 but been unable to access the area of roof as scaffolding was needed.
2. The work had been rescheduled with the resident for 26 July 2021 but there was no one home initially when the contractor attended. It said that the resident had returned home and the contractor had put the roofing felt back in place from within the loft without the need for scaffolding. The landlord noted it was not clear what had brought about the change in whether scaffolding was required.
3. A sub-contractor had attended on 24 September 2021 and arranged a follow-on appointment with the resident.
4. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated his complaint on 15 October 2021 saying again that no one had attended on 24 September 2021 and that no follow-on appointment had been agreed. He said that he had tried to contact the sub-contractor but it was a high-cost phone number. The landlord acknowledged the escalation and said that a senior manager would respond by 12 November 2021.
The landlord made further enquiries with the contractor which subsequently advised that the sub-contractor had attended on 19 October 2021 and reported that scaffolding was needed to complete the repair.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 October 2021 saying that he had reported the leak in May 2021 and that water was dripping into the loft and affecting the bedroom ceiling. He said he had reported it several times, but it had not been repaired. The resident said that he had contacted the sub-contractor which had told him that scaffolding needed to be ordered by the main contractor. He said that he had asked for his complaint to be escalated because the landlord’s response was not correct and that it was not fair he would have to wait another 20 days for a response when he had already waited six months for his repair. The resident said that his daughter was autistic and could not sleep in her bedroom due to the noise of dripping water. He said that the situation was causing a lot of stress and he was incurring the cost of frequent phone calls to try to sort things out.
The resident reported the leak again on 29 October 2021 and it was triaged as before. The landlord raised a fourth order which was recorded as completed on the same day having been attended by the landlord’s out of hours response service.
The resident chased the repair with the landlord on 12 November 2021 saying that he was worried that the ceiling could fall down and it was the bedroom of his autistic daughter. He said that he had not had a response to his complaint escalation.
The resident reported the leak again on 18 November 2021 and it was triaged as before. The landlord raised a fifth order which was recorded as completed on 29 November 2021, but the contractor notes stated that no access was gained.
On the same day, the landlord provided its stage two response to the resident’s complaint. It apologised that the previous response was not satisfactory. The landlord said again that the sub-contractor had attended on 24 September 2021 to inspect the leak and found that scaffolding was needed. It said that an appointment had been booked for 29 October 2021 and an operative from the out of hours team had attended and completed the repair. The landlord said that the complaint had been through all the stages of its process. Whilst the response advised the resident to contact the Housing Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied, the contact details provided in the response were for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
The resident responded the same day saying he remained dissatisfied as the information in the response was not correct. He said that the contractor had attended on 29 October 2021 because he had reported water coming through the bedroom ceiling as an emergency and that a temporary repair had been done. The resident said that the roof had not been repaired, the sub-contractor had not attended as the landlord had stated, and that no scaffolding had been provided. The landlord responded on 26 November 2021 saying that it was sorry that the resident was unhappy with the outcome of their stage two complaint. It reiterated that the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s process and this time gave the correct contact details for the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

Although the resident initially contacted this Service on 16 November 2021, the landlord had not yet provided its stage two response to his complaint. After receiving the landlord’s final response, the resident contacted us again on 18 November 2021 saying that he remained dissatisfied as the repair had not been done despite him having reported it several times and making a complaint. He said that he felt the landlord had not taken the matter seriously and that the delay had affected his autistic daughter who could not use her bedroom at times. The resident said that the problem was getting worse over time and the repair needed doing.
The resident reported the leak to the landlord again on 21 December 2021 and it was triaged as before. The landlord raised a sixth order which was recorded as completed on 23 December 2021, but the contractor notes stated that scaffolding was needed.
On 8 April 2022, the landlord advised this Service that the repair had been scheduled for 30 March 2022 but, due to the contractor not attending, it had been rescheduled for 8 April 2022. The resident advised us that the work was not started until scaffolding was erected on 15 November 2022 and solar panels removed to enable the repairs soon afterwards. He said the removal of the solar panels left the roof exposed resulting further leaks during heavy rain. Although the roof repair was completed, the resident advised that the refixing of the solar panels damaged the roof and he had detected a further leak which was repaired around 14 December 2022.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.

Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak

The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted the following common points of failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs which are relevant in this case:
1. Residents having to make multiple attempts to get repairs resolved, often over a prolonged period.
2. Lack of clarity around how repairs were categorised, rendering its policy timescales meaningless.
3. Little checking of the progress of repairs.
4. Not following its emergency procedure in respect of leaks.
5. Poor record keeping resulting in delays, misdiagnosis of repairs and lack of clarity on whether a repair had been completed or not.
The evidence seen shows that the resident reported the leak to the landlord on ten occasions between 19 May 2021 and 21 December 2021 and there is also reference to the resident contacting the contractor and sub-contractor directly to try to progress the repair. Despite the frequent reports, and the landlord carrying out temporary repairs, the leak was still not finally repaired until December 2022, which was 19 months after the resident had first reported it.
The landlord provided this Service with a timeline of events from 8 April 2022 which shows the delays from this date being due it changing its repair contractor, the outgoing contractor not completing the outstanding repair orders that it had, and delays in the new contractor obtaining the necessary permits for the work from the local authority. Whilst the landlord may have had limited control over some of the issues which caused delay from April 2022, the repair should have been completed much sooner. Overall, the landlord’s responses to the residents reports of leaks and its handling of the repair needed were inappropriate and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s policy and tenant’s handbook give unclear information regarding the landlord’s timescales for responding to leaks. This is because the response time could be two hours, three to seven days or 30 days depending on whether the repair was categorised as an emergency, urgent or routine, and because the definitions of emergency and urgent repairs differ slightly in the documents. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its published information to ensure residents know what to expect when they report a leak.
From the evidence seen in this case, the landlord’s triage process seems to determine the urgency of a leak by asking if it is affecting the electrics and whether it can be contained for up to seven working days. As such, it is likely that the majority of leaks would be classed as routine repairs with a 30 day response timescale, even if there is a danger of it damaging the property. The triage process may also result in other relevant factors, such as a resident’s vulnerabilities, being omitted in decision making when responding to reported repairs. The Ombudsman’s special report included a recommendation that the landlord review its triage process.
In this case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered each of the resident’s reports of the leak to be an emergency or urgent repair under its repair policy. Whilst the landlord raised six repair orders for the roof leak between 19 May 2021 and 21 December 2021, no evidence has been seen of the classification and timescale given to the reports. Furthermore, although the evidence shows that the repair orders were marked as completed, it appears that no work was done in respect of four out of six of the orders raised.
The evidence seen shows that the reports made by the resident and the orders raised were managed in isolation on each occasion, resulting in a new timescale being applied each time. No evidence has been seen that the landlord or its contractor gave any consideration to the overall period that the leak had been ongoing, questioned the repeated reports or challenged that orders had been marked as complete when it appeared that no work had been done. This delayed the leak being repaired and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman’s special report included recommendations that the landlord reviews its repair process and escalate recurring repair reports appropriately.
In this case no evidence was seen that the landlord considered the impact on the resident when deciding the urgency of its response. Given that the resident told the landlord that he had a disabled child on 24 September 2021 and that the child was autistic and could not use her bedroom at times on 20 October 2021, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have expedited the repair. That it did not do so caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In the first three reports made by the resident, the evidence seen shows that he asked for someone to contact him before attending. The evidence shows that this was only noted on the first repair order raised, and although there is reference to the contractor leaving a voicemail message prior to the appointment on 26 July 2021, there is no other evidence that any appointments were pre-arranged with the resident. This is likely to have caused further delay, for example, the contractor noted that no access had been gained regarding the repair order raised on 18 November 2021 but no evidence has been seen that an appointment had been arranged.
For the reasons set out above there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the leak.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In this case, the landlord did not fully complete the repair until 19 months after the resident had first reported the leak and offered no redress for the inconvenience and distress caused by the delay and its handling of the reports. As such, an order has been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay the resident £500 compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused by the delay in carrying out the work and the communication failings.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted the following common points of failure in the landlord’s handling of complaints about repairs which are relevant in this case:

a) The landlord’s complaint policy not being compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) in respect of response timescales.

b) Incomplete and inaccurate complaint responses.

c) Missed opportunities to put things right at an early stage.

d) Poor liaison with contractors, often taking a contractor’s response at face value rather than challenging where necessary.

e) Believing repairs had been completed despite resident’s reports to the contrary.

f) Not considering compensation for service failings in its complaint process.

As noted in paragraph six, the landlord’s complaints policy and tenant’s handbook give different timescales for responding to stage one complaints. This is confusing for residents, and the landlord’s policy is not compliant with the code. The Ombudsman’s special report included recommendations that the landlord update its policy and ensure compliance with the requirements of the code.
In this case, the evidence seen shows that the landlord appropriately made enquiries with its contractor when the resident complained. However, the contractor’s responses were inadequate and did not respond to all the points raised. The landlord did seek to clarify some points with the contractor at both stages of its complaint process. However, there is no evidence of any robust challenge or persistence by the landlord to get the answers it needed. This left the landlord being unable to appropriately respond to the resident’s complaint. For example, the landlord stated in its stage one response that it was not clear what had brought about the change in whether scaffolding was required. This was because the contractor had not addressed that point despite the landlord asking it twice for clarification.
The landlord’s stage one response referred to the resident not being at home initially when the contractor attended on 26 July 2021. It is not clear why the landlord felt this was relevant in answering the complaint, given that the resident had returned when the contractor called them and that some work was done. That it did refer to this was inappropriate as it may be perceived as blaming the resident for the repair process being delayed.
The evidence seen suggests that the landlord believed the contractor’s account of events despite the resident’s reports to the contrary. For example, the resident told the landlord in his initial complaint that no one had attended his home for the planned appointment on 24 September 2021. Although the landlord queried this with the contractor, there is no evidence that it investigated why the contractor’s account was different to the resident’s resulting in the landlord presenting the contractor’s account as a statement of fact in its stage one response. Despite the resident challenging this in his complaint escalation, the landlord continued to state the contractors account in its stage two response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated both accounts further and to have explained its understanding of the events in its complaint response.
The landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s escalation said that a senior manager would respond. It is not clear why the landlord said this as neither it’s “your views procedure” or tenant’s handbook refer to a senior manager responding to stage two complaints. Whatever the reason, no evidence was seen that the complaint was investigated or responded to by a senior manager at stage two. As such, the landlord gave the resident an inaccurate expectation of how their complaint would be handled following escalation.
As noted in paragraph 20, the landlord incorrectly gave the resident the contact details for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in its stage two response but gave the correct details in its subsequent correspondence. There was no detriment to the resident due to this as they had already made contact with this Service before receiving the landlord’s stage two response. However, the landlord should ensure that the correct Ombudsman details are given on all its complaint responses.
None of the landlord’s complaint responses appropriately addressed the delay in the repair being completed. Nor did they put things right for the resident as there was no acknowledgement that the leak was continuing despite the contractor saying it had attended. This meant the opportunity of resolving the issue was missed throughout the complaint process and meant further delay in completing the repair and further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord did not comply with the code in the aspects set out above and did not put things right for the resident. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. In relation to the failures identified, an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation of £150 to the resident in recognition of the frustration and inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak.
2. Complaint

Reasons

From the evidence seen, there was an inappropriate delay in the repair work being fully completed despite the resident making multiple reports of the leak and raising a complaint.
The landlord’s complaint handling did not comply with the code and missed opportunities to put things right for resident throughout the complaint process.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the shortcomings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £650 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the failures highlighted in this report. The compensation must be paid to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
  1. £500 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the leak.
  2. £150 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Review its published information regarding repair timescales to ensure they are clear and consistent and that residents know what to expect when they report a leak.
2. Take steps to make sure that the correct Ombudsman contact details are given on future complaint responses.