Birmingham City Council (202208106)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208106

Birmingham City Council

24 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 response to the resident’s reports of leaks to his property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a ground floor flat, owned by the landlord.
The resident initially contacted the landlord concerning water leaking from the flat above his, thrice between February and March 2021. There was a routine repair on 21 April 2021 for damage to the ceiling and walls. He made further reports from January to March 2022, including describing the issues as an ‘uncontainable leak’. In his formal complaint of 28 February 2022, the resident stated that there was “dirty water leaking from upstairs and damaging the bathroom roof and walls.” He explained that this had been reported previously and cost him a lot of money. He also stated that he was unable to wash or use the toilet and was sleeping in his car or in friends’ houses.
In its stage 1 decision of 18 March 2022, the landlord stated that repairs had been carried out to resolve the problem. It explained that the problems were due to a leaky bath in the flat above and that a new bath had been ordered. The landlord also advised the resident to complete the compensation claim form and to initially claim from his own insurers. In its final decision, of 1 July 2022, the landlord stated that it was unable to investigate the actions of a contractor as they no longer worked for the landlord and had not provided information which it required. It advised that another contractor would complete the outstanding works by 1 August 2022.
The resident has confirmed to this Service that repairs were carried out to the bathroom walls and the ceiling on 22 June 2022. However, he was not satisfied with the repairs and wanted it inspected. He also stated that the property was still experiencing flooding issues from the property above.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident stated that there had been problems with water leaks to the property since 2016 and the ceiling came down twice. This is not disputed and it is evidenced in the repair logs that previous reports were made between 2016 and 2018. However, there is no evidence that the formal complaint, on the basis of which the matter was referred to this Service, was made prior to February 2022.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.” This report cannot consider the previous incidents in assessing the landlord’s handling of the present case as these have become historical and cannot reasonably be investigated at this time. Any mention of past events in this report will be solely for contextual purposes.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of water leaking into his property.

It is not disputed that the leak was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve. The landlord’s repairs policy requires it to carry out routine repairs within 30 days and urgent repairs within 1 to 7 days. The leak would ordinarily be categorised as a routine repair, but should have been treated as an urgent repair at the point when the resident described it as being uncontainable. Upon receiving reports of repairs required by its residents, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to carry out a reasonable inspection of the reports and then to carry out any necessary repairs.
The landlord’s repairs logs indicate that the resident reported the leaks from the flat above the property on a number of days as from January 2021. The records do not indicate any works having been undertaken after a further report in April 2021. However, the log indicates that this was an emergency repair, which is explained by the description of the ceiling plaster being ‘loose or bulging.’ It must be noted that the landlord did undertake some visits to the property in relation to the leaks, on 10 and 23 March 2021, but the logs provide no clarity about the nature of the visits and the action taken.
It is not clear to this Service if there was any communication between the parties after the April report as the next communication provided for the assessment of this case was another report by the resident, 8 months later, in January 2022. This Service is, thus, unable to ascertain whether the leaks continued unabated throughout the months. However, the resident’s reports of an “uncontainable leak” in early 2022 indicates that the leaks continued and likely worsened.
In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, the leak was categorised variously as routine or emergency, according to the details provided by the resident. However, it would appear from his report of 6 February 2022 that the ceiling had given way for the second by that date. While the repairs log makes no reference to a collapsed ceiling, it indicates that it was again “loose and bulging.”
The resident’s formal complaint of 28 February 2022 resulted in the landlord contacting its contractor on 2 March 2022. In responding to the landlord, on 4 March 2022, the contractor explained the source of the leak and advised the landlord of their difficulties gaining access to the neighbour’s flat, resulting in the delay to completing the works. The contractor provided this information to the landlord on 4 March 2022, and added that a new bath had been ordered for the neighbour’s flat, to replace the one with a hole causing the leak. It further stated that the resident’s property had been plastered. The stage one response of 18 March 2022 also confirmed that outstanding repairs to the plastering would be carried out.
The stage one decision letter required the resident to complete a claims form on the basis of which it may offer compensation if it found “evidence of negligence, or legal liability is accepted.” It also referred the resident to its own insurer in the first instance, if he had one. It is clear from the evidence that the leaks had been ongoing for a considerable period and the extent of damage caused to the property was significant. The resident had informed the landlord about the impact on him, including being unable to remain in the property or to use the washing facilities.
In light of the facts discussed above it would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge in its decision that the delays in undertaking the repairs had resulted in the leak worsening and causing damage to the walls and ceiling of the property. It should also have discussed the residents description of the impact on him and disclosed its findings on inspecting the property. It was not sufficient that it chased its contractors for the works at this stage. The information about the cause of the delays was not timely as there is no evidence that it has previously communicated the access issues to the resident. On the contrary, the evidence shows that the resident chased it to complete the works.
The landlord failed to utilise the opportunity of the complaint response to address the resident’s assertions about the condition of the property and the facilities not being usable. Its response implied that the resident could not expect to be compensated under its internal complaints process as it used legal expressions and directed him to consider contacting his insurer. Its response was lacking in empathy and showed no willingness to consider whether it had provided a customer focused service.
According to the documents provided to this Service, the landlord continued to chase the contractor for further action on the repairs in May and June 2022 and received no further reply. In its stage two response of July 2022, it apologised for the delay. It, however, stated that it was unable to investigate the complaint regarding the “[contractor’s] performance” as the contractor no longer worked for the landlord and had not provided the requested information on the matter.
The landlord, by this further response, made the contractor, and not itself, the focus of the complaint. This was both unfair to the resident and inappropriate. The resident was entitled to expect his landlord to take responsibility for delays caused by the actions of the contractor which was its agent. The legal relationship was between the landlord and the resident, and the repairs duties laid with the landlord. Furthermore, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to have its own records of the work carried out by its contractors and especially work relating to fairly recent repairs. The response about its inability to investigate the case due to the contractor no longer working for it was unreasonable and unacceptable.
The resident confirmed that the new contractor carried out the outstanding repairs on 20 June 2022 but he was not happy with the repairs as he stated that there already had been further leaks. The resident requested for the repairs to be inspected. The landlord has advised, on 4 July 2022, that it considered the complaint closed and the resident could raise a new complaint if he was complaining about the new contractor. Further, the landlord advised that the contractors would not carry out decoration works as this was not a landlord obligation. It acknowledged the compensation claim form, but this Service has not been provided with any evidence relating to compensation in this investigation.
The completion of works to the property formed part of the resolution offered by the landlord in its response to the complaint at stage one. No evidence has been provided to this Service of the works having been post-inspected before the final decision was made. The Ombudsman would consider it appropriate that when repairs have been reported numerous times in a short period of time that the landlord would carry out its own inspection. There appear to have been attempts at inspection but not until after the matter was referred to this Service at the end of 2022.
The “no decorating” comments is another evidence of the landlord not providing customer-focused service in this case. Although the landlord is ordinarily not responsible for decorating, in the circumstances it would be reasonable and good practice for it to attempt to put the resident in a position that he would have been in had the damage not occurred. The repairs to the wall and ceilings was clearly due to the considerable leaks occurring repeatedly, over time, and the delays in undertaking the repair. The delays may have been due to the neighbour not granting access to their property but it is for the landlord to deal with the impact on the resident of its tenant’s property causing a leak into the resident’s home. It is, similarly, its responsibility to deal with the impact of its contractors’ lapses on its investigation of the resident’s complaint. This includes a situation where it was unable to obtain requisite records from its contractor.
The landlord also needs to consider its own processes for obtaining additional evidence and its own record keeping systems. Inconsistent and incomplete records made it particularly difficult to gain clarity on the events in this case. This was compounded by the landlord not adequately communicating with the resident, as it appeared that it left it to him to continue to chase the repairs, despite not receiving updates from the contractor until the formal complaint was made. More concerning is its redefinition of the issue such that it appeared to be a complaint about its contractor as separate from itself as a landlord.
The resident raised further issues with the leaks which were recorded in the repair logs of September 2022, suggesting ongoing issues. It would be advisable for the landlord to ensure that an inspection is carried out. The landlord advised this Service, on 12 December 2022, that it attempted to visit the resident on two occasions but there was no response and it could not gain access into the property. The resident would have to liaise with the landlord for an inspection to be conducted.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to due to water leaks. Orders have been made for compensation on the issue as the evidence shows that this was warranted and the landlord manifestly failed to do all it should have to put things right. Orders has also been made for the landlord to make good the interior of the property in recognition that the damage occurred due to it the time taken to resolve the leaks.

The Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two-stage formal complaints process, if it is unable to resolve a complaint straight away. At stage 1, it aims to provide a response within 15 working days, and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The stage one complaint was dealt with within the requisite timescales. Following this, the resident’s escalation request was on 21 April 2022 and acknowledged by the landlord on 22 April 2022 . However, the landlord’s final response was on 1 July 2022, 48 working days later. This was a significant delay and far in excess of its own target timeframe. Failure to respond within the landlord’s target time frame increases the frustration and inconvenience experienced by residents and may cause delays in escalation of complaints to this Service.
The landlord informed the resident that it would provide the stage 2 decision by 20 May 2022, its failure to communicate about the delays during this time clearly increased frustration for the resident. It offered an apology for the delay, however, this Service finds that that this was insufficient redress. Further compensation has been ordered for this aspect of the case for the landlord’s service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about water leaking into his property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of receiving this determination, the landlord is required to provide evidence to this Service of its compliance with the following orders:
1. Pay the resident £500 in compensation, in recognition of the maladministration identified in its response to the resident’s complaint of water leaking into the property.
2. Pay the resident £50 in compensation, in recognition of the service failure identified in the associated complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the repairs carried out by its contractors at the property, to identify and put right any outstanding issues/repairs.
4. The landlord to contact the resident to arrange to redecorate the affected parts, after the inspection and completion of any further repairs if identified.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider implementing measures towards its improving its record keeping systems.