Birmingham City Council (202122370)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122370

Birmingham City Council

7 September 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:
    1. The resident’s rehousing application.
    2. Repairs to the resident’s property.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all of the evidence, we have determined that:
    1. As per paragraph 41d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the handling of the resident’s rehousing application is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
    2. As per paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord whose tenancy began on 18 March 2015. The property is a semi detached house and the landlord is a local authority (and will be referred to as ‘the council’ in this report).
  2. On 30 April 2021, the resident logged a complaint with the council. She expressed dissatisfaction at delays she had experienced in having repair issues resolved. The resident gave specific examples of a replacement gas fire (which she had been told could not be installed until June) and replastering of a ceiling (which she said had taken a period of several years to be done and, she felt, had not been completed to the appropriate standard).
  3. On 17 May 2021, the council provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said that its repairs contractor was unable to source new gas fires until June 2021, so all jobs had been booked in after that date. It said that its contractor had informed it that the ceiling repair was completed in December 2020, and any issues with the quality of the workmanship should have been raised at that time. It invited her to log a further repair if she felt the ceiling still required work.
  4. On 27 September 2021, the resident raised a new complaint about the priority banding that her application for rehousing had been awarded. She alleged that the council had not appropriately considered her application or her housing need, and said the current property had caused injuries to her family.
  5. On 26 October 2021, the council provided a stage 1 complaint response. It gave details of actions taken by its applications and allocations teams, and advice about various rehousing options. The council also stated that “our records show that the repairs that you outlined in your email were addressed by our Repairs Team last year. Furthermore, on 25 October 2021 I emailed our Repairs Service to check if there are any recent outstanding repairs to be carried out on the property. I have been informed by my colleague that there are no outstanding repairs”.
  6. On 8 November 2021, the resident replied to the council’s stage 1 complaint response. She expressed continued dissatisfaction around the banding she had been awarded and the time it was taking for her to secure a move. She also stated her general dissatisfaction with the council’s repairs service and again referred to incidents where her family members had been injured due to repair issues.
  7. On 22 November 2021, the council provided its final response letter to the resident’s complaint. It stated that the banding awarded to her had been in line with the criteria set out in its allocations policy. It said that its records showed that her complaints regarding issues of repair work and injury to her family members had previously been investigated, with a detailed response provided. It signposted her to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) should she remain dissatisfied.

Reasons

The priority banding awarded to the resident’s rehousing application

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) sets out the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider complaints brought before this Service. In particular, paragraphs 41 sets out the types of complaints the Ombudsman cannot consider.
  2. Paragraph 41d states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints about local authorities in England which relate to their provision or management of social housing. This does not include complaints about applications for rehousing – including assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference. These matters fall within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO.
  3. The resident may wish to contact the LGSCO for assistance with her complaint about this matter.

The landlord’s handling repairs to the resident’s property.

  1. The resident’s complaint made on 30 April 2021 expressed dissatisfaction with the council’s housing repairs service, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Service. However, the landlord has advised that, following its stage 1 response of 17 May 2021, the resident did not contact it to request to escalate her complaint to the second stage of its process. This Service has seen no evidence to dispute this.
  2. Paragraph 42a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. In this case, there is no evidence of a failure or lack of action to bring the complaint within jurisdiction.
  3. Although the later stage 1 and 2 complaint responses provided by the council (on 8 November 2021 and 22 November 2021) make reference to repair issues, these are entirely different matters to that of the stage 1 complaint made on 30 April 2021. The resident has clarified that these matters are historic in nature, having occurred in 2018, and the stage 2 response of 22 November 2021 asserted they were subject to a previous complaints procedure.