Birmingham City Council (202233022)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233022

Birmingham City Council

17 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the gas leak.
2. Handling of concerns about the conduct of the contractors during a subsequent visit.
This report has also taken into consideration the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In her contact with the landlord, the resident said she was upset her life was compromised due to a gas leak which caused potential carbon monoxide poisoning and resulted in a hospital visit. Although we can consider the impact of the issues reported and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability or issue a binding decision about personal injury claims, or award damages. These are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any offer of compensation will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). We have signposted the resident to Citizens Advice for further information should she wish to pursue this aspect of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the 4-bedroom end terraced house with her son and daughter since 30 December 2002.
On 29 December 2022, the resident reported a smell of gas to the landlord and an emergency 1 hour appointment was raised to a contractor. The gas supplier was contacted and capped the gas before the contractor arrived. The contractor conducted a ‘sweep’ to ensure there was no immediate risk to life and attended again on 3 January 2023. The resident would not provide paperwork relating to a reported hospital visit. As the contractor was unsure what investigation was needed, it left without completing any further inspection or repair.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for progress as she had no heating or hot water after the gas was capped. The contractor attended on 27 January 2023 to complete the inspection. A fault was found on the fire but as the parts were obsolete, a new one was ordered. The new fire was installed on 3 February 2023, and a new boiler was installed on 15 February 2023.
The resident submitted a complaint on 29 December 2022. She said the contractor took 3 hours to attend a 1-hour emergency appointment and when they arrived, they only conducted a check and said a further investigation was required. She claimed the contractor was unprofessional and did not know what it was doing. She said the gas supply had been capped, and she would be left without heating or hot water until 3 January 2023, when the contractor could go back. Due to the delay in the complaint acknowledgement (16 January 2023), and the subsequent delay in the response, the resident made a further complaint regarding the delay in the complaint process. This was acknowledged on 18 January 2023, when the resident asked for the 2 complaints to be linked.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 22 February 2023, including an apology for the delay. It confirmed the contractor attended on 27 January 2023, and identified a fault with the fire. It said that a new fire had been installed on 3 February 2023 as the parts needed were obsolete. On 23 February 2023, the resident requested a review of the complaint. She stated the outcome was “unacceptable” and believed the landlord was trying to “minimise” her complaint by not responding to all the issues raised.
The final complaint response was provided on 13 March 2023. It confirmed:
1. The contractor attended the repair (smell of gas) outside of the service level agreement due to a high influx of emergencies.
2. A sweep was completed to check for any immediate risk to life. The contractor explained it was a make safe visit only and a further inspection would be done to identify any works needed.
3. The contractor attended on 3 January 2023, however the resident refused to provide supporting documentation to support the claim of carbon monoxide poisoning. The contractor tried to explain this was procedure, and the paperwork was needed to determine what inspection was needed. The communication became difficult, and the contractor left the property.
4. It was not trying to cover up any information. It explained that all enquiries are logged under different case numbers, and that was why the response did not cover all issues raised.
The resident contacted this service on 21 March 2023. She confirmed the smell of gas was reported on 29 December 2022, and she had no heating and hot water until 22 February 2023. She said the contractor staff were unprofessional and disrespectful. The resident stated the landlord’s final complaint response overlooked the issues that were at the root of the complaint.
Following a report of a problem with a radiator on 18 April 2023, the resident submitted a new complaint on 27 April 2023, regarding the service provided by the contractor. She alleged it failed to attend an appointment and on the rearranged date, it arrived late. The resident said the operative proceeded to smoke and drink with the music in the van “pumping”. After a conversation with the operative, he put a card through her door. A missed appointment was recorded.
The landlord’s complaint response on 12 May 2023, confirmed the operative did attend late. It said he was new and was in early stages of development with the contractor. The management team were aware and appropriate actions were in place with him. It confirmed he had fallen behind on appointments but had not communicated this. As he did not have the standard equipment, the contractor could not track his location, or provide the resident with an update.
On 16 May 2023, the resident asked for the complaint to be reviewed, stating basic manners did not require training and the contractor had tried to play down the behaviour. She said the outcome was unacceptable. The landlord’s final complaint response was sent on 24 August 2023. It apologised for the delay in the complaint response and confirmed the following:
1. The stage 1 complaint response had been sent to the resident’s daughter in error. It agreed this was unacceptable and the team had been reminded of the importance of using correct contact information.
2. Allegations regarding staff conduct were taken seriously and it would take appropriate action to deal with incidents reported to it. It apologised for any upset or distress caused.
3. Errors of the contractor had led to failed appointments. Full responsibility had been accepted and the contractor apologised for the inconvenience caused. The landlord confirmed it would address this with the contractor.
4. It would arrange a new appointment if the problem was still outstanding.
The resident contacted this Service on 18 July 2023, with an update to her complaint. This included the service received from the contractor following the missed appointment in April 2023.
The evidence provided by the landlord confirms the repair to the radiator was completed on 20 October 2023, and no other issues had been reported.

Assessment and findings

Handling of report of gas leak

Upon receipt of the report, the landlord acted in accordance with its repair responsibilities and raised a 1-hour emergency repair. The contractor, who is expected to work to the landlord’s service standards, failed to comply. Without contact to the resident, the Ombudsman finds this delay unreasonable, and the contractor should have attempted contact to provide assurance to the resident. It is evident the resident was expecting further work to be done during the visit. However, despite the late arrival time, the contractor fulfilled its obligations and completed the necessary safety checks to ensure there was no immediate risk to life and confirmed a further inspection was required.
It is noted that the resident did not have heating, hot water or cooking facilities following the gas cap. The landlord’s repair policy states that if there is a loss of heating, a temporary heater may be provided along with a temporary 2 ring cooking appliance. There are records to confirm a hot plate hob was requested on 29 December 2022, and delivered on 30 December 2022. The resident also confirmed she was given 2 temporary heaters, although it is evident she believed 2 heaters were not enough for the property size. The resident said 1 of these broke and she requested another. While this is not disputed, there is no evidence of this being reported to the landlord, or how the landlord responded. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord met its responsibility in providing temporary heating and cooking facilities.
The contractor returned on 3 January 2023, when the resident stated she had been to hospital with potential carbon monoxide poisoning. While it was reasonable for the contractor to ask to see the paperwork, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that a full inspection should be completed, regardless of whether the paperwork was provided. The refusal of the resident to offer this paperwork should not have prevented the contractor completing the inspection during this visit given the potential health and safety risks. This ended up being rearranged for 27 January 2023. Considering the resident had been without heating or hot water since 29 December 2022, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the contractor confirmed the inspection was not an emergency, taking into consideration the time of the year and the loss of facilities, the landlord (and its contractor) should have attempted to bring the appointment forward.
The visit on 27 January 2023 identified a fault with the fire. As the parts were obsolete, it was reasonable and appropriate of the landlord to replace the fire. Taking the ordering and delivery into account, the Ombudsman finds the time taken to replace the fire reasonable. It is also noted that records show the boiler and pipework were replaced on 15 February 2023, due to ongoing issues, which the Ombudsman finds was the appropriate course of action to take.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the gas leak. The contractor failed to comply with the service level agreement for an emergency repair. Although the gas supply had been capped, the contractor did not know this, but the Ombudsman finds it unreasonable that no contact was made to the resident to offer assurance that it was attending. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that based on the knowledge there was potential carbon monoxide poisoning, the contractor should have completed an inspection on its return visit, despite the resident’s refusal to show paperwork. The next visit was not arranged for almost a month later. Taking into consideration the lack of facilities available to the resident, the Ombudsman finds this timescale unreasonable.
It is noted that no compensation was offered to the resident. This was despite the admission of the service failure of the contractor, the impact this could have had on the resident, the time she was left without heating and hot water during winter months and the inconvenience this is likely to have caused. In the landlord’s complaint response, it did not demonstrate how it had taken these factors into consideration. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable, and compensation should be offered. Further information can be found in the orders section of this report.

The conduct of contractors

Following a report of a further problem with the heating, an appointment was made for 24 April 2023. Although the resident got a reminder text message for the appointment, the contractor did not attend. When this was queried, she was told it had been changed to 27 April 2023, but it was later acknowledged this had not been communicated to the resident. The Ombudsman finds this a failure in communication in repair planning and is likely to have caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident who had changed working patterns and had to chase the landlord for an explanation.
On the day of the re-arranged appointment, the operative arrived late. Despite this, the resident said the operative sat in the van and proceeded to smoke with the music “pumping”. The contractor subsequently demonstrated its investigation into what had happened and provided a clear explanation of its findings. It is evident that the resident expected more feedback or consequence because of the reported behaviour; however, the Ombudsman finds the contractor’s investigation was reasonable, and while it was not obliged to provide detail, it did confirm appropriate actions were already in place.
The Ombudsman does not find any maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the conduct of the contractor staff. The contractor showed evidence of the investigation it had completed and confirmed its awareness of the situation. It provided the landlord with a reasonable outcome and confirmed it was taking appropriate action to manage this. The Ombudsman finds this a reasonable response to the issue raised.

Associated complaints

When the resident submitted a complaint regarding the response to the gas leak, the landlord failed to comply with its policy in terms of acknowledging the complaint within the 2 working day policy timescale. Due to delay in the acknowledgement and subsequent response, the resident raised a new complaint regarding the delays in the complaint process. The resident’s request for the 2 to be linked was agreed by the landlord. As it had not responded to the initial complaint by this point, it was reasonable of the landlord to agree to this.
The landlord did not sendits complaint response until 22 February 2023. This was 37 working days after the complaint was received, which means the landlord failed to comply with its 15 working day target.There was no evidence to suggest the landlord communicated with the resident regarding the delay which is a stipulation of the complaint policy.The landlord did apologise for the delay but referred to the resident’s ‘enquiry’ rather than complaint.This raises concerns regarding the terminology used and the resident’s perception of the importance placed on the investigation.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not fully address the issues raised. For example, it did not address the contractor’s late attendance to the emergency appointment nor the delay in the complaint process, and as a result there was no demonstration that it had understood the complaint. The Ombudsman finds this a failing on the part of the landlord and raises concerns regarding its process for confirming understanding of a complaint, the focus placed upon investigations, and general complaint management. The landlord’s failure to address the issues raised is likely to have caused frustration for the resident and been a contributing factor to the escalation of the complaint.
Following the escalation of this complaint, the landlord’s final complaint response was sent in line with the policy timescale. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord again did not address all the issues raised by the resident. It explained why the contractor was late to the emergency appointment and confirmed the correct procedures had been followed during both visits. It did however miss a further opportunity to address the delays in the complaint process.
In the Ombudsman view, by omitting these issues, the landlord failed again to show it understood the complaint. It is noted that despite the acknowledgement of the service failure of the contractor, the delays associated with the complaint, and the complaint not addressing all of the issues raised, the landlord did not offer any compensation to the resident. The Ombudsman believes these failures should be recognised by offering compensation to the resident. Further information can be found in the orders section of this report.
The resident submitted an additional complaint regarding the service received from the contractor. The landlord complied with its timescale to acknowledge and respond to this complaint; however, the response was sent to the resident’s daughter. Although in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord addressed the issues raised by the resident, she remained unhappy with the response and the complaint was escalated.
The landlord’s final response to this complaint was sent 71 working days after it was received, which means the landlord failed to comply with its policy. There was no evidence to show the landlord communicated with the resident regarding the delay in the complaint response which is an action required of it in its policy. The response acknowledged and apologised for sending the initial response to the resident’s daughter and confirmed its learning regarding this. It acknowledged the delays in the complaint process, the errors of the contractor in relation to the repair appointments and it apologised for the inconvenience caused. It is noted that despite the service failures identified as part of the complaint review, the landlord again did not offer any compensation in recognition of the impact these had on the resident. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable and has made orders to redress this within this report.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaints. The landlord did not consistently comply with its own policy. This led to prolonged delays, caused frustration for the resident (who spent time and effort chasing the landlord for updates) and resulted in additional complaints being made. It failed at several opportunities to address the issues raised by the resident which contributed to the escalation of the complaints and demonstrated a lack of understanding and complaint management. Although service failures were identified and acknowledged, the landlord did not confirm how it would learn from these or offer any form of redress to the resident. This raises concern with the landlord’s ability to utilise the complaint process to address the failures identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the gas leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of concerns about the conduct of the contractors during a subsequent visit.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident £500 compensation which is made up of the following:
  1. £200 for the service failures identified in the handling of the gas leak.
  2. £300 for the complaint handling failures.
2. This compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
Complete a full case review. This should focus on the service that was delivered in terms of the response to the smell of gas and subsequent repairs. It should also include a review of the complaint handling and should identify any lessons that can be taken to improve service delivery in the future. Upon completion, a copy of the case review should be sent to the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing its procedure relating to inspections following a report of carbon monoxide poisoning. The landlord (or its contractor) should not be reliant on medical paperwork prior to an inspection being completed.
The landlord should consider contacting the resident to ensure there are no further issues with the fire, boiler, or radiators. If any issues need addressing, the landlord should agree a schedule of work with the resident and monitor these repairs through to completion.
The landlord should consider complaint refresher training with the staff responsible for complaint management. The landlord should also confirm to this Service when it will provide its updated self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s revised Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord should confirm to this Service its intentions regarding the above recommendations.