We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Birmingham City Council (202211353)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211353

Birmingham City Council

28 November 2024


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and the associated repairs.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 24 November 2008. The property in question is a 3-bed flat.
  2. The resident had raised reports of leaks from properties above hers in 2020 and 2021. In March 2022, the resident reported another leak from above her property. After attending, the landlord raised a works order to repair a bulge in the ceiling. A further leak was attended in April 2022 with additional kitchen works being carried out in May 2022.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 6 July 2022 as the ceiling works were outstanding and she had been told that it contained asbestos.
  4. Following the complaint, the landlord raised at least 9 works orders in the next 3 months for leaks and separate works orders for other linked works. These leaks originated from properties above the resident’s and on more than one occasion it had to force entry into those properties to stop the leaks.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 9 November 2022. It accepted that there had been delays with works orders linked to the ceiling works but it had since replaced the asbestos ceiling. The landlord acknowledged that there was a history of leaks reported at the property. It said it had carried out a site visit on 24 October 2022 and agreed several works to repair damage caused by the leaks. It said that, following that site visit, there were further leaks from another property above but it was due to visit that property on 10 November 2022.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 14 December 2022. The escalation request provided to this Service was the same as the initial complaint.
  7. The landlord carried out cosmetic and repair works in the resident’s property in February 2023 and March 2023.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 13 April 2023. It acknowledged the history of intermittent leaks and said that it had attended a neighbouring property on 28 November 2022 and repaired the cause of the leaks. The landlord said it attended the resident’s property afterwards and found no evidence of ongoing leaks but agreed to cosmetic works to address the damage caused by previous leaks. It also noted that the resident had reported another leak prior to its response. The landlord offered a compensation payment of £250 in response to the complaint.
  9. The resident has continued to experience intermittent leaks from above her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Within the resident’s submission, she provided details of further instances of leaks from above her property that took place after the complaint process was completed. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service cannot consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In view of this, this investigation will focus on events up to April 2023. Other events may be referenced but these will be for contextual purposes only. 

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and the associated repairs

Leaks

  1. It is clear that the resident experienced several issues with leaks from the properties above between March 2022 and November 2022.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy says that leaks should be repaired within 7 working days, in line with the Right to Repair Regulations 1994. Although the landlord attended and marked the works orders as completed in line with that timeframe, it is clear that the problems continued after those visits. This demonstrates either a failure to identify the causes of the leaks, or a lack of lasting repairs.
  3. It is understandable that identifying the cause of leaks in high rise buildings can be difficult. However, detailed record keeping can assist with narrowing down the possible location or causes of such leaks. In this instance, the landlord’s record keeping was limited. In most cases, works orders were just noted as being completed. This meant that there was no detail around the cause of the leak, the location of it or how it had been repaired.
  4. Within the Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report produced by this Service, we highlighted the need for accuracy in landlord records. The report said that the records should “tell the full story of what happened, when and why”. However, the works order records provided by the landlord in this case do not provide such clarity. 
  5. Given the number of incidents over such a short period of time, it would be reasonable for the landlord to have carried out a more comprehensive investigation into the cause of the leaks. Instead, the landlord attended and made individual repairs, rather than taking a more proactive approach and carrying out a full inspection of the properties involved. Had it done so and carried out any required works in each of those properties, this may have prevented further instances of leaks.
  6. It is evident that following the stage 1 response, the landlord carried out repairs at a neighbouring property on 28 November 2022. The resident did not report any further leaks for several months after this, with the next leak being reported at the end of March 2023.
  7. Notes from a visit to the property in May 2023 said that along with the resident, another of the properties had the same leak which it suggested could be the bath in a different property. The continued nature of these reports during and after the complaint period demonstrates that the landlord’s failure to take a more proactive approach likely led to a reoccurrence of the same issues. This led to the resident experiencing further damage to her property, shortly after the completion of remedial works caused by the previous leaks. This only added to the distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced.

Repairs

  1. It is evident that the landlord failed to carry out repairs linked to the leaks in line with the timeframes set out in its repair policy. After identifying that it needed to carry out ceiling repairs on 23 March 2022, it took until 5 August 2022 for the landlord to replace it. This is significantly outside of the 30 days specified for a routine repair. There was a similar delay in replacing a kitchen unit, which took over 3 months.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the majority of repairs booked during the complaint period, which were not emergency repairs, took longer to complete than the timeframe set out in its policy. These continued delays in completing repairs are a service failing by the landlord which added to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Summary

  1. The landlord did attend emergency works and leaks in a timely manner. However, its management of continued leaks was reactive, addressing individual issues when they happened, rather than taking a proactive approach and investigating the causes of the leaks from the properties involved. Had it taken more thorough actions, it could have significantly reduced the likelihood of further leaks. 
  2. The failure to carry out an investigation of the reason for so many leaks caused significant inconvenience for the resident, including damage to her property and the time taken to raise and address these issues. Having considered the service failings identified in this report, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and associated works.
  3. After the stage 2 complaint response was issued, the landlord offered a compensation payment of £250. Given this review of the complaint, the Ombudsman is of the view that this is not proportionate when considering the failings and the significant impact on the resident over an extended period of time.
  4. It is of concern that a leak was again reported by the resident around the time this complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Further, the resident has informed this Service that there were problems continuing into 2024. This indicates that the landlord failed to learn from the outcome of this complaint and it is unclear if it has yet reached a clear diagnosis of the cause of long-term leaks into the resident’s property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s complaints in line with the timeframes set out in its complaint policy. Its stage 1 response took 90 working days rather than the 10 working days stated in its complaint policy. The stage 2 response took 84 working days rather than the 20 working days stated in its policy. Although it is understandable that there can be reasons for delays, the time taken at both stages is excessive and the landlord did not provide any explanation behind the delays at either stage. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord.
  2. In addressing the resident’s complaint, the landlord failed to make any offer of compensation for the service failing in its management of the complaint itself. Given the excessive delays with no acknowledgement of them, this Service is of the view that compensation should be paid in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 42 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident
  2. Within 42 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £650 to the resident (inclusive of the £250 awarded through its complaints process), made up of:
    1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of the leak reports and associated repairs;
    2. £150 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  3. Within 42 days of this report, the landlord must carry out a full inspection of the resident’s property (and, if required, neighbouring properties) to diagnose the cause of any ongoing leak and establish whether any remedial works remain outstanding.
  4. Within 14 days of the above inspection, the landlord must write to the resident with a full report that confirms its findings and includes a schedule of works (with timescales) for any works that are needed. It should advise the resident of a point of contact who will offer her regular updates pending completion of works.
  5. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.