Birmingham City Council (202121637)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121637

Birmingham City Council

28 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues to the floorboards and ceiling.

Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. She purchased the property on 12 July 2021 through the right to buy scheme and is now the freeholder. The property is a house.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported loose floorboards on 11 June 2021. The contractor attended an appointment on 27 July 2021, repaired the floorboards, and raised follow-on works to assess the ceiling plaster. On 28 July 2021, a second contractor confirmed the kitchen ceiling was structurally fine and there were no cracks.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 31 August 2021 as she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not completed the repair works. She said that the contractors had delayed the work, so the repairs were not completed before she purchased the property.
  4. In both complaint responses, the landlord said it was no longer responsible for completing further repairs, as the resident had purchased the property.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this service, she said she had initially raised repair concerns regarding the bedroom flooring and kitchen ceiling in the beginning of 2021. She said that repairs to the flooring were completed in March 2021, but the landlord failed to repair the joist before she purchased the property. She wanted the landlord to complete the repairs or offer compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. In accordance with the repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the ceilings and flooring in tenants’ properties. Its repairs policy also states that “major repairs, renewals and improvements shall not normally be carried out to a property whilst a right to buy application is being processed. Responsive repairs shall continue to be carried out during the period up to purchase date”.
  2. The resident told this service that she raised repair concerns regarding the bedroom flooring in early 2021; however, the landlord’s records show that it initially received a report on 11 June 2021. As there is no contemporaneous evidence to confirm that the repair was reported prior to this date, this service is unable to verify whether the landlord was aware of the reports at an earlier date.
  3. When the resident initially reported the loose floorboards, despite the right to buy process having commenced, the landlord assumed responsibility for the repair. This was appropriate as loose floorboards are considered a responsive repair, which falls under the landlord’s remit of repair responsibilities during the right to buy process, in line with its repairs policy.
  4. The landlord initially responded appropriately, as it promptly arranged an appointment to repair the floorboards on 11 June 2021. The work order was marked as complete the same day; however, it is unclear what repairs were done. The landlord is expected to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail as the onus is on it to provide evidence that it has fulfilled its repair obligations. However, in this case, as the resident confirmed the repairs to the flooring were completed and the repair records for the follow-on works are more detailed, there was no detrimental impact. 
  5. A contractor attended on 27 July 2021 and refixed the bedroom floorboard joists but noted the slight movement on the joists had caused cracks in the kitchen ceiling. A second contractor attended on 28 July 2021 to assess the ceiling plaster and determined it was structurally fine and had no cracks. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified contractors when determining how best to proceed with repair issues. It was therefore reasonable that a follow-on appointment was raised to assess the ceiling to ensure that a suitably qualified contractor attended. As the second contractor determined that the ceiling was structurally fine, no further works were required.
  6. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns that the contractor delayed the repair works in its complaint response. In line with this service’s complaint handling code, the landlord should respond to all the points raised in the complaint. Despite its failure to do so, in this case, there was no detrimental impact on the outcome of the complaint as there is no evidence to suggest the landlord delayed the works, and the landlord’s decision to not complete the works was ultimately correct. If the landlord had provided a clear response to the resident’s concerns, it may have resolved the complaint at an earlier date. A recommendation has therefore been made below for the landlord to assess its complaint handling and take steps to ensure it responds to all complaints in full.
  7. When the resident purchased the property, there was no longer a contractual relationship in place between the resident and the landlord, so she assumed the repair responsibilities. As a result, it was reasonable that the landlord declined to complete any further works when the resident pursued the repairs in August 2021, as the right to buy was completed.
  8. Overall, the landlord fulfilled its repair obligations so there is no evidence of service failure. It took appropriate steps to complete repairs to the flooring and assess whether further repairs to the ceiling were required, which the contractor deemed not to be necessary. The landlord is no longer responsible for any repairs following the sale of the property, as the resident is the freeholder.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of repair issues to the floorboards and ceiling.

Recommendations

  1. As the landlord did not address all elements of the complaint, it is recommended that it assesses its complaint handling and takes steps to ensure its responses are thorough.