Birmingham City Council (202202841)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202841

Birmingham City Council

12 May 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 complaint concerning its actions following a flood at his property, and the condition of his ceiling.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy that began on 6 October 2008. The property is a one bedroom first floor flat. The landlord is a council.

Complaint policy (Customer guide – your views’ procedure)

The landlord’s policy states that it operate a two-stage complaint process. Complaint responses are sent to residents within 15 and 20 working days at stage one and two of the process respectively.
The policy lists what the landlord will do with a complaint at stage one of its process. This includes, “investigate it fully”.

Summary of events

On the morning of 26 November 2021, prior to office hours, the landlord sent an internal email explaining that there had been a sprinkler activation a few hours earlier at the block of flats where the resident lived. It stated that the activation looked to have been caused by a tenant whose fifth floor flat had been severely flooded. It described the damage caused to each of the four flats directly below. It said the fourth floor flat had been flooded and the third floor flat had heavy water ingress. It stated that the second floor flat and the resident’s first floor property had water coming through the ceilings and both had had their electrics isolated. It described various works it had carried out. It stated that some of the tenants had been temporarily moved to a hotel, including the resident.
The landlord sent a follow up internal email shortly afterwards listing the works that needed to be raised for each of the flats. This included air tests, drying and reinstatement of electrics, provision of dehumidifiers and completion of an ‘aqua vac’. A further internal email sent one hour later confirmed the works had been raised.
Later the same morning, the landlord’s repairs contractor sent an internal email confirming that works could not begin until the asbestos specialist had checked the building. A further internal email sent later the same day stated that the asbestos specialist had completed visual checks in all five flats, and confirmed air tests were not required.
On 29 November 2021, the repairs contractor emailed an update to the landlord. It detailed the work that had been completed and the work that was still outstanding in the worst affected upper floor flats. It stated that no works were required in the resident’s property, or the flat above, and the resident had moved back in.
On 5 December 2021, the resident registered his complaint to the landlord via its webform. The complaint accused the landlord of criminal negligence for failing to maintain the structural integrity of his property. It said that structural defects had led to cracking along the length of his ceiling and the ceiling edges, and that the cracks penetrated from the floor of the flat above. The cracks had meant that he had experienced flooding for the duration of his tenancy, with water escaping from the properties above him. The resident said that this had put his life at risk from water saturating the electrics in his property.
On 6 December 2021, the landlord met its repairs contractor at the resident’s block to assess progress since the sprinkler activation. The internal emails exchanged focused on the upper floor flats.
On 6 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging his complaint, and advising it would provide a response within 15 working days. The landlord also emailed a copy of the resident’s complaint to its repair contractor and asked for its comments.
On 8 December 2021, the repairs contractor replied to the landlord. It said that its electricians had attended the property but it had not yet inspected the resident’s ceiling. It advised that due to the flood, it’s asbestos team needed to complete visual and air tests. Following this it would “get the power sorted”. It said the resident would be advised of appointments.
First thing in the morning of 9 December 2021, the landlord sent an internal email referencing a discussion held with its repairs contractor about the resident’s property. It said that the resident’s property had had “electrical and asbestos checks etc” but not a dehumidifier. It noted the repair contractor’s email sent on 29 November 2021 stating that no works were required at the resident’s property. It commented on how saturated the fourth and fifth floor flats had been and speculated that water may be working its way down the block to the first floor. It said somebody was enroute to the resident’s property and dehumidifiers were available on site.
One hour later on 9 December 2021, the landlord sent the resident its stage one complaint response letter. It quoted the same information it had received on 8 December 2021 from its repairs contractor, and added an apology to the resident for the inconvenience.
In the afternoon on 9 December 2021, the repairs contractor emailed the landlord. It said it had visited the resident as it had received a complaint. It said that there was no water damage to the property to warrant a dehumidifier or any cleans, and the electric was working fine. It said the resident was happy with what it had done, but not happy about the leaks from the sprinklers. It stated that no further works were required to the resident’s property.
On 17 December 2021, the landlord raised a job for a large area of the resident’s ceiling to be plastered. The target completion date was 2 February 2022.
On 11 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord using its webform. He said that the cracks along the entire length of his ceiling needed to be hermetically sealed. He stated that a plasterer would not have the expertise to diagnose the problem, nor suggest a permanent solution.
On 13 January 2022, the resident used the landlord’s webform to request his complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s process. The landlord replied the same day and advised it would respond to the resident’s stage two complaint by 8 February 2022. The landlord also emailed a copy of the resident’s complaint to its repair contractor and asked for its comments.
On 14 January 2022, the landlord’s repairs contractor called the resident ahead of attending the plastering job at his property. The repairs record stated that the operative had reported back that the resident became very aggressive and was swearing at him, saying he should not have called on his private phone. It noted that the job was not carried out as the operative did not feel safe to attend.
On 26 January 2022, the repairs contractor replied to the landlord. It said that two maintenance supervisors had previously attended the resident’s property and had advised that the cracks had been filled and that no structural works were required.
On 26 January 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response letter. It apologised that the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s stage one response, and confirmed his complaint had been fully investigated. It passed on the same information it had received earlier that day from its contractor. It referred the resident to this Service if he remained unhappy.

Summary of events after the completion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 1 February 2022, the resident emailed a local councillor asking for help with issues he was experiencing from the landlord and its repairs contractor. The councillor sent the email to the landlord the same day, and queried its contents. The resident’s key points were as follows:
1. The resident’s first floor property had been flooded due to a sprinkler head being set off on the fifth floor.
2. He had been using electrical items at the time, and got two electrical shocks.
3. Many of his personal belongings had been ruined and he was temporarily moved to a hotel.
4. He relayed the findings of the landlord’s stage two complaint response on 26 January, and said they were not true.
5. He explained that the two people from the landlord’s repairs contractor had attended his property, but that they were only there to look at the electrics. He had pointed out to them the “fractures” in his ceiling, but they had only advised that a surveyor would need to look at it. Despite what the landlord had said, the cracks had also not been filled.
6. On 14 January, he had received a call from a plasterer from the landlord’s repairs contractor. The number that he received the call on was one that he had expressly asked the contractor not to store or use. He was very annoyed and said that he got upset and swore at the plasterer.
On 14 February 2022, the landlord sent an internal email referring to the local councillor’s query of the email he had received from the resident. It asked if it was aware of any structural issues or inspections to be undertaken at the resident’s property following the sprinkler activation. It noted that there was an outstanding plastering job that was yet to be appointed.
On 7 March 2022, the landlord replied to its internal email, apologising that it had been previously missed. It referred to its repairs contractor’s email from 26 January 2022 stating that the resident’s property was inspected by two of their supervisors. A separate email sent by the repairs contractor to the landlord the same day confirmed that the plastering job at the resident’s property was booked for 5 April 2022, and would be brought forward if it got a cancellation.
On 6 July 2022, the landlord raised the plastering works for the resident’s ceilings again. It attended on 22 July 2022 but the repair record states that the resident said he wanted all new ceilings and refused the works. It said the operative had taken photographs of the “hairline cracks”.
On 25 August 2022, the landlord raised the plastering works for the resident’s ceilings again.
On 5 September 2022, the landlord’s contractor rang the resident ahead of the works. The repairs record said that the resident had stated that he had not known the contractor was coming and asked to speak to the manager. The resident was advised to rebook the work at his convenience and the job was marked as no access.
The resident has since told this Service that the landlord has taken no further actions.

Assessment and findings

The evidence provided to the Ombudsman showed that the landlord’s repairs contractor responded effectively to the sprinkler activation flood at the resident’s block in the early hours of 26 November 2021. The resident and other tenants were temporarily decanted, the electrics were isolated, and the damage was assessed. The necessary checks and works had been identified and requested before the landlord had opened for normal business.
The landlord’s records showed that this continued with its prompt raising of all works. The landlord provided good records of the ongoing dialogue and efforts of its repairs contractor to see the works at the resident’s block through to completion whilst keeping the tenants informed.
However, this was in stark contrast to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s numerous complaint handling failures constitute severe maladministration.
The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 5 December 2021. It described the cracks in his ceiling, and expressed his safety concerns with both the structural integrity of his property, and the water saturated electrics. It was appropriate for the landlord to seek the comments of its repairs contractor. However, it was not reasonable for the landlord to use the repairs contractor’s brief update as the sole basis for its stage one complaint response, sent to the resident on 9 December 2021 with no further investigation. This directly contravened the landlord’s own policy that stated all complaints would be fully investigated, and it entirely failed to address the resident’s key points of concern.
This was further compounded by the fact that what little information that was contained in the landlord’s stage one complaint response was either inaccurate, out of date or contradicted other records. Shortly before the landlord sent its complaint response to the resident, internal discussions were held over email referencing its repairs contractor and regarding the resident’s property. However, this appears to have been entirely disconnected from the landlord’s complaint handling. The discussions provided further information that rendered the landlord’s proposed complaint response as obsolete. The repairs contractor had also made clear that it would visit the resident at his property. It was not reasonable that all of this was in isolation from the landlord’s complaint handling, and that the brief, and now obsolete, complaint response was sent to the resident regardless.
The repairs contractor again acted promptly, and it was reasonable for it to attend the resident’s property the same day (9 December 2021) to check the safety of the electrics and assess the effects of any further water that was working its way down the building. However, these actions were also disconnected from the landlord’s complaint handling, as the landlord sent its stage one complaint response before the repairs contractors had provided its update from its visit to the resident. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
When the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident it still had up to 11 further working days to investigate and respond, in line with its complaint policy. It would have been reasonable for the outcomes of the contractor’s visit to the resident on 9 December 2021 to be verified by the landlord, and then used as the basis for addressing the resident’s concerns and agreeing any necessary resolutions. This was particularly given that there was ample time to allow this course of action; the landlord’s lack of an investigation and brief and inaccurate complaint response represented a serious failing.
It is further concerning that this same pattern of poor complaint handling was then repeated at stage two of the landlord’s process. On 17 December 2021, the landlord had raised works for a large area of the resident’s ceiling to be plastered. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of when or how this was communicated to the resident. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident was aware, as he objected to the proposed works via the landlord’s webform on 11 January 2022, and asked for his complaint to be escalated two days later. Again, it was appropriate for the landlord to seek the comments of its repair contractor, but not reasonable for the contractor’s brief reply to be used as the sole basis for the landlord’s stage two complaint response to the resident.
As at stage one of the landlord’s complaint process, this was again further compounded by the fact that what little information that was contained in the landlord’s stage two complaint response was either inaccurate, out of date or contradicted other records.
On 11 January 2022, the resident had voiced his objections to the proposed plastering works, and his expectation that a permanent solution be found to the cracks in his ceiling. On 14 January 2022 he had refused the plastering works. The landlord’s stage two complaint response was sent on 26 January 2022 but failed to address any of this. The landlord had received a brief update earlier that day from its repairs contractor and it was unreasonable that it had again failed to investigate any further, and had effectively just copied this update and used it as its final complaint response.
The update from the repairs contractor, and as such the landlord’s complaint response, had advised that the cracks had been filled and no structural works were required. The resident’s email to the local councillor on 1 February 2022 stated that the only inspection that had taken place was to check the electrics. He also said that the tradespeople who had attended had said they were not qualified to assess the ceiling cracks, and that the cracks had also not been filled. The landlord has provided this Service with no evidence that would suggest these points made by the resident were not accurate. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that as well as being wholly inadequate, the landlord’s stage two complaint response sent to the resident was also factually incorrect.
Through the complaints process, the resident raised concerns about the structural integrity of the property and advised that a plastering repair was insufficient, requesting the ceiling be sealed instead. He indicated that this was required due to historic water ingress in addition to the November 2021 flood. There is no evidence to show that the landlord considered this request, surveyed the ceiling to check for integrity or gave the resident an answer. This was unreasonable and will have left the resident uncertain as to whether the landlord was taking his safety concerns seriously.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint concerning its actions following a flood at his property, and the condition of his ceiling.

Reasons

The sprinkler activated flood and temporary decant would have been a traumatic and stressful event for the resident. It is regrettable that the initial good efforts of the landlord’s repairs contractor were undermined by the landlord’s extremely poor complaint handling. That the landlord’s complaint handling failed to even address, never mind resolve, the resident’s primary concerns about his property would have only added to what was already a distressing episode for him. The landlord barely investigated the resident’s complaint at all, and instead relied upon the unverified updates of its contractor. It then used the contractor’s informally worded internal emails as the near verbatim basis of its complaint response letters. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was therefore wholly unreasonable, and constitutes severe maladministration.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that:
1. a senior member of the landlord’s staff calls the resident to apologise for the service failings identified in this report;
2. the landlord pays the resident £650 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling;
3. the landlord arranges an inspection of the resident’s ceiling by a suitably qualified person, addresses the resident’s structural concerns, and raises appropriate remedial works.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should share a copy of this report with its member responsible for complaints, along with an assessment of how it would have handled the complaint under its new policy and process following the revisions made in response to the Ombudsman’s special report in January 2023.
The landlord should then identify any further improvements and actions within its complaint handling as a result of this investigation. The landlord should update the Ombudsman within eight weeks of the date of this report.