Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Birmingham City Council (202304660)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304660

Birmingham City Council

31 October 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of issues with the central heating system.
    2. Reports of issues with the toilet and associated drainage systems.
    3. Requests for adaptations to his kitchen.
    4. Reports of subsidence in the rear garden.
    5. Reports of draughts from the front door and windows.
    6. Associated formal complaints.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a 1-bed bungalow owned by the landlord, which is a local authority. He resides alone and has several health conditions, which include mobility issues and visual impairment.
  2. The resident first reported issues with the central heating system, toilet and drainage and sinking ground in his rear garden between November and December 2020. On 3 August 2022, he reported a draught from his living room window. On 4 April 2023, he complained that his kitchen had not been adapted for his disabilities after it agreed to complete these on 21 February 2023.
  3. Between January 2021 and July 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about all the above issues on multiple occasions as he felt it was not completing repairs, investigations, or adaptations promptly.
  4. The landlord provided stage 1 responses on 9 February 2023, 14 April 2023, 26 April 2023, 1 August 2023, 17 October 2023, and 17 April 2024. Its responses varied depending on the subject matter, apologising for repair delays to the toilet and advising that it would not be completing adaptation works to the kitchen, along with declining a complaint while the resident had involved solicitors in relation to repairs.
  5. The landlord provided 2 separate stage 2 responses to the resident on 8 December 2023 and 7 June 2024. In its first response it apologised for a service failing in arranging follow-up works to the toilet and drains between both of its contractors. It declined to facilitate any further inspections for subsidence and stated that he was not eligible for an adapted kitchen. In its second response, it indicated that it had found no issues with the central heating system and that it had installed 3 new uPVC doors to the property.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to his complaint, disputing several of the points it had made, and brought his complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint the resident has reported the effect that the issues have had on his health. The Ombudsman is not able to make a determination about any links between the issues and the resident’s health concerns. Under paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where this Service considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. However, the Ombudsman will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to their health is more appropriate for the courts and he may wish to seek appropriate advice if he wishes to consider that option.
  3. Under paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the landlord’s allocation process does not fall within the remit of this Service and is a matter for consideration by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). We have, therefore, not considered the matter of whether the property met the resident’s housing needs as part of this investigation and have instead focused on his requests for adaptations to the current property in the relevant section of this report.

Central heating system

  1. The tenancy began on 23 November 2020 and there were immediate repair issues with the boiler, which the landlord rectified on 24 and 25 November 2020. It completed further repairs on 10 December 2020. The boiler broke down again on 9 January 2021 and it completed these repairs between 13 January and 3 February 2021.
  2. The resident reported further issues with the central heating system throughout 2021 and 2022 and the landlord’s contractors attended for each report. They found no issues during this period and were not always able to access the property. The annual gas services took place as required, and it identified no problems during these. Its responses throughout 2021 and 2022 were diligent and timely. It correctly logged all repairs by priority and attended within either the emergency or urgent timescales of within 2 hours or 1 to 7 working days as set by its repairs policy. During visits in 2022, the contractors provided appropriate advice on where to place the thermostat that he had installed by a third party, as they believed that this may have been affecting how the property was heating.
  3. In January 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended and topped up the pressure in the boiler. The resident made a further report that the radiators were leaking on 2 February 2023. It ordered parts for this on the same day and completed repairs on 6 February 2023. This was a prompt response to a genuine repair need and it completed works within its urgent repairs policy timescales.
  4. The resident raised that the gas central heating boiler was defective via his solicitor on 22 February 2023, as part of a pre-action letter of disrepair claim. He then made no further reports until 3 March 2023 but when its contractor attended, they found that although the heating was working, he had switched it off. It continued to attend to his reports within policy timescales, despite regularly finding no problem upon arrival.
  5. On 4 May 2023, the landlord inspected the central heating system as part of a wider property inspection relating to the resident’s ongoing legal claim. It found the heating and hot water systems were working but noted that he told it the living room radiators did not heat up enough and the hallway radiator was too small. It booked an appointment for 12 May 2023 to inspect and rectify any issues. Its contractor attended this appointment and found no issues, stating the system was working as always. It continued to treat his reports appropriately and attended within its policy timescales on each occasion.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord on both the 27 and 31 October 2023. He said that the hallway radiator was too small, and that the central heating system had not worked properly since he moved in and that when it inspected the property in May 2023, it promised a full overhaul of the system. It acknowledged his complaint but did not respond to this point in any of its subsequent responses. While this Service acknowledges that he had made several separate complaints which may have complicated its response, its failure to respond to one of the main complaint points was not reasonable.
  7. The resident made further reports of heating issues between January and March 2024 but when it attended, the landlord could either not gain access or could not find any issues with the heating system. He then made a further complaint via his local councillor on 28 March 2024. It investigated this and found that between February 2023 and March 2024, he had made more than 15 reports of heating issues. It completed repairs in February 2023 but had found no further problems. It responded on 12 April 2024, relaying this information. Its response was factual and based upon well-kept records from its contractor.
  8. The landlord discussed ongoing complaints with the resident during a phone call on 24 May 2024. Afterwards, it investigated his claims that it promised him a central heating overhaul and told him that the hallway radiator was too small. It found that it had completed works to inspect his hallway radiator as part of the appointment on 12 May 2023 and that it had completed all works raised from its inspection by 22 August 2023. It advised him of this in its stage 2 response of 7 June 2023, and while its response to this point was brief, it did thoroughly investigate the history of the issue ahead of responding and provided information based upon the extensive repair records it held.
  9. In conclusion, the landlord has demonstrated exceptional adherence to its repairs policy in its handling of the resident’s reports of a defective central heating system. Its contractors continued to attend the property for each report and provided advice to him where appropriate, despite rarely finding any issues. As such, a finding of no maladministration is appropriate.

Toilet and drainage

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on landlords to keep in repair the structure and exterior of a dwelling house. This includes the installations for the supply of water and sanitation and more specifically, toilets, basins, sinks and baths.
  2. The resident first reported that his toilet pan was loose on 25 November 2020 and followed this with a report of a leaking bathroom pipe on 26 November 2020. He made further reports throughout December 2020, and the landlord completed works to unblock the toilet pan, basin and sewer pipe.
  3. The landlord continued to attend to reports of toilet and drain blockages throughout 2022. It completed repairs in August 2022 and refixed the toilet to the floor as it had become loose. It had to refix the toilet to the floor again in November 2022 and required a specialist drill to do this. It attended each call within its repairs policy timescales for emergency or urgent repairs.
  4. On 19 January 2023, following another blockage on 6 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about the ongoing issues with the toilet and drainage systems. He stated that he was having to use a stick to break up waste so the toilet could flush and then when flushing, the water was not flowing as it should. Its general contractor had been out and said that there was an issue with the sewers and that its drainage contractor would need to attend and complete a CCTV inspection of them. He said that it had not done this and reported that the toilet pan was loose and wobbling, causing water to leak out.
  5. The landlord investigated the resident’s complaint with its general contractor, and they replied to it on 20 February 2023. They listed works that they had completed but acknowledged that they had unfortunately closed outstanding works in error after the drainage contractor had attended, without returning to complete toilet repairs in November 2022. They raised the works for prompt action and asked it to send him their apologies for the delays and any resulting inconvenience.
  6. The resident raised that toilet pan was loose and rocking when sat on, along with bathroom and kitchen drainpipes blocking via his solicitor on 22 February 2023, as part of a pre-action letter of disrepair claim. The landlord’s contractor then attended an appointment on 28 February 2023 which they had previously arranged. They found that the toilet was not blocked and noted that he refused to let them tighten the pan to the floor. This was 8 days after they had raised the works and demonstrates attempts to rectify the issue.
  7. The landlord’s contractor continued to attend to the resident’s reports of a blocked and loose toilet between February and April 2023, including repairing the flushing mechanism on 24 March 2023. It provided him with its stage 1 complaint response on 26 April 2023 and apologised for its contractor not providing the expected level of service. It explained the need for a specialist drill to fix the toilet pan to the floor and that they closed works after the drainage contractor attended, meaning that they never returned to complete works. It shared their apology and stated that works would be actioned quickly. This was a repeat of the contractor’s statement to it, and it had already attempted to complete works on 28 February 2023.
  8. The landlord’s provided its complaint response outside of its complaints policy timescale of 15 working days. The reason for the delay is unclear, but it did not apologise to the resident for this. This was not appropriate as there was a clear and ongoing issue with the toilet and the associated drainage.
  9. As part of the previously mentioned property inspection on 4 May 2023, the landlord noted that the toilet pan was loose and rocking at the time of the inspection. It logged the cause as wear and tear and that it would require remedial works. It also stated that it needed to complete a drain survey to determine if there were any issues with the drain from the bathroom and that the shower waste was not draining away due to a blockage or faulty pump which would also require works. This was a positive step towards rectifying the ongoing problems.
  10. The resident made a further complaint to the landlord about several issues on 15 May 2023. Part of the complaint related directly to the ongoing problems with the toilet and drainage which it had already responded to at stage 1, but it did not log this as a stage 2 escalation request or acknowledge the complaint. This was not reasonable as it missed an opportunity to advise him of when it planned to complete the identified repairs and prevent further complaints.
  11. The landlord included works to refix the toilet pan to the floor, complete a drain survey, and repair the shower pump as part of its schedule of works on 29 June 2023. However, when it completed a further inspection of the property on 27 July 2023, all works remained outstanding. This was outside of its repairs policy timescale of 30 days for routine repairs and was not appropriate given the nature of the issue as it relates to health and safety, alongside the issue of a loose toilet pan when accounting for the resident’s mobility issues.
  12. On 28 July 2023, the landlord raised works to complete a CCTV drainage survey and repair the shower power. It repaired the pump on 11 August 2023. However, on 4 September 2023, the resident made a further complaint to it about the ongoing problems with the toilet. He said that it had not completed the survey. While it may have taken time to arrange required repairs, it was aware from 4 May 2023 that a survey was required, and it did not arrange this. This was not appropriate in the circumstances, and it may have avoided further complaints if it had acted more promptly, in accordance with its repairs policy.
  13. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 8 December 2023. It apologised for the ongoing challenges the resident had been facing in relation to the drainage issues and acknowledged that there had been a service failing between its 2 contractors arranging follow-up works. It noted that the contractor unblocked the toilet during a visit on 7 November 2023 and they said that they had previously raised the need for a CCTV survey as the issue was reoccurring. It offered no redress for the identified failing, other than an apology and made no mention of organising a CCTV survey. Its response to this point was poor and it did not provide its overall response within its 20-working day policy timescale.
  14. The evidence provided in this case demonstrates that the resident continued to report issues with the toilet and drainage to the landlord throughout 2024. It completed the CCTV survey of the property on 9 August 2024, over a year since it first identified that this was necessary. On this date it also fitted a new toilet and completed jet-washing of the internal drainage system to ensure it was clear and free-flowing. While it is positive for the resident that it has now completed the works, it far exceeded its repairs policy timescales in doing so and offered no form of compensatory redress for this.
  15. Overall, the landlord did not adequately address the ongoing issues reported by the resident in relation to his toilet and drainage systems. It failed to complete investigatory, and repair works it identified during its inspection and did not offer any form of appropriate redress to him for this. As such, a finding of maladministration is reasonable for this element of his complaint.

Adaptations

  1. The resident has repeatedly said that the landlord agreed to complete adaptations to his kitchen as a condition of him accepting the tenancy in November 2020, as he told it before accepting that the kitchen did not meet his housing needs. It offered him the property as a permanent decant due to extensive required works in his former property. However, in a telephone call with this Service on 25 October 2024, he advised that this was a verbal agreement and that it never confirmed this in writing.
  2. Evidence provided by the landlord in this case demonstrates that the social care occupational therapy team completed an assessment with the resident on 8 September 2022. The outcome of this assessment was that he was not eligible for a disabled facilities grant as he was not a permanent wheelchair user, and as such, it would not fund kitchen adaptations. It is a reasonable expectation that the landlord would rely upon the assessment completed by its occupational therapy team and decline adaptations based on the report.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 April 2023, stating that occupational therapy had recommended a refurbishment of his kitchen in February 2023. He also said that its operatives had agreed to complete these works based on this during a visit on 21 February 2023. On 14 April 2023, its contractor stated that it had not agreed to complete adaptations and that he had asked whether he could get the work done himself by way of application, which it had said he could.
  4. The landlord relayed this information to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response on 14 April 2023. No evidence has been provided to this Service showing that it or, its contractors, had agreed to complete adaptations at any point. Therefore, its complaint response was fair and appropriate in the circumstances.
  5. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on the same day as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response, stating that the property did not meet his housing needs and requesting a further assessment. As part of its stage 2 complaint investigation, it received correspondence from the occupational therapy team. They explained that, on 1 February 2023, they observed the resident’s functional ability and found that he did not meet the eligibility needs for an adapted kitchen. They also stated that his request for extra kitchen cupboards and storage was not something they would provide or consider.
  6. While it was reasonable of the landlord to rely upon the professional opinion of the occupational therapy team, it did not respond to the resident’s complaint any further until he chased it for a response on 30 May 2023. It did not provide a response until 1 August 2023, when it stated that as he was in the process of litigation against it and had instructed solicitors, they and a specific landlord team would oversee all repairs. It did not offer any further information. This was not reasonable as adaptations did not form part of the litigation proceedings and it did not offer any further advice to the resident.
  7. The resident raised the matter again on 19 October and 31 October 2023 as part of 2 separate complaints. On this occasion, it sought advice from all relevant internal teams. All teams confirmed that it had advertised the property as general needs, which he accepted, and that occupational therapy had confirmed he did not meet the criteria for a disabled facilities grant. It explained this clearly in its stage 2 complaint response of 8 December 2023.
  8. On 28 March 2024, the resident raised the matter a further time via his MP. The landlord requested a further occupational therapy assessment on 11 April 2024 and responded to him at stage 1 on 17 April 2024. It explained that it held no records on file to suggest that it made any agreement with him to adapt his kitchen. Occupational therapy completed a further assessment in April 2024, and they again found that he was not eligible for kitchen adaptations.
  9. Overall, the landlord has responded to the resident’s requests for adaptations fairly. As the landlord is a local authority, any requests for adaptations are made to its occupational therapy and adult social care teams. In this case, it referred his requests to these teams who found that he was not eligible. It is appropriate for the landlord to rely on the professional opinions of these teams. As such, a finding of no maladministration is appropriate.

Subsidence

  1. On 14 August 2023, the resident requested a structural inspection of his back garden, as the landlord’s contractor had attended in relation to ongoing drainage issues, and they advised that the drains required a CCTV survey due to possible subsidence. Its repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for repairs to drains, drainage, pathways, steps, and other means of access. The policy places a 30-day target on completion of routine repairs, with it communicating timescales of more complex issues to the tenant. Its general contractor attended on 12 September 2023 and requested it book its drainage contractor in to inspect the underground waste pipe. This was within its policy timescale of 30 days, and it was appropriate of the contractor to request further inspection to ensure that it could take a thorough approach.
  2. The resident made a further call to the landlord about the matter on 28 September 2023. It made an appointment for 6 October 2023. Its contractor attended but the operative was not a structural surveyor, and they again requested a CCTV survey of the drains. It attended and completed a structural inspection on 9 October 2023 and notes from this state there was no structure problem, no problems with the drains, and no subsidence.
  3. On 10 October 2023, the resident complained to the landlord as he felt that it had not inspected for the root cause of the subsidence as agreed on 9 October 2023. It responded at stage 1 on 17 October 2023, stating that it had attended and had found no defect or subsidence. It considered that it had reasonably investigated the matter and advised him that he was entitled to commission his own structural survey if he wished. Its response was reasonable, and it was appropriate of the landlord to base it upon the professional opinion of its staff and contractors.
  4. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 19 October 2023, stating that the landlord’s contractor had confirmed that there was subsidence in the back garden and although the drains were fine, it required a structural survey for which he would not pay. He continued to raise the matter in complaints ahead of its stage 2 response of 8 December 2023. In this response, it repeated the information that it provided at stage 1 and stated that it would not facilitate additional inspections as he requested, as it deemed its prior investigation and the results of this, reasonable.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response was again based upon the professional opinion of its staff and contractors, following their inspections. This was factual and appropriate way to respond to the complaint.
  6. The resident continued to raise the issue with the landlord, leading to it attending on a further 3 occasions between 27 February and 30 August 2024. These inspections determined that the rear garden was settling due to the previous removal of a soil planter. This is supported by evidence from December 2020, in which the resident reported that the ground in the garden had sunk from the previous tenant putting a large pile of dirt on it. Along with this, it found that there were no signs of subsidence, or cracks to the brickwork of the property.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence was reasonable. It attended in a timely manner, within its repairs policy timescales and could find no evidence of subsidence. It demonstrated good practice when it attended on further occasions after stating that it would not do so and continued to check the property for any signs of ground movement or cracks to the property. As such, a finding of no maladministration is appropriate.

Draught from windows and door

  1. The resident reported a draught coming from his living room window on 3 August 2022. It attended this on 2 September 2022 and found that no works were necessary, and all mechanical elements of the window were in good order. It attended within its 30-day policy timescale for routine repairs.
  2. The resident raised the matter to the landlord again via his solicitor as part of pre-action for a disrepair claim on 22 February 2023. It raised routine repairs works for draughty windows and a draughty front door with water leaking in on 3 April 2023 with a target date of 19 May 2023. While this exceeded its repairs policy timescale of 30 days for routine repairs, the letter from his solicitor asked that it make no attempt to complete repairs during the pre-action period and so it was in a difficult position.
  3. The landlord investigated both issues as part of a wider property inspection relating to the legal pre-action on 4 May 2023 but was unable to determine the severity of the draughts due to calm weather on the inspection day. In its inspection report, it noted that it would need to overhaul the windows to ensure that they were air and watertight and that it required remedial works to the front door. It had already raised the works and as such, it was in a strong position to rectify the issue.
  4. On 15 May 2023, the resident complained to the landlord and included the ongoing issues with draughts as part of this. The next day, 16 May 2023, it cancelled the window, and door works as he refused them and wanted to take matters further. It had included overhaul of bedroom, living room and kitchen windows on the schedule of works sent to his solicitor, along with installing a new front door and repairing the glazing on the back door. These were still awaiting approval by his solicitor on 29 June 2023 but the inclusion of these demonstrates its willingness to rectify the issue.
  5. The landlord raised works again on 28 July 2023, following solicitor agreement. It did not include the overhaul of windows or the front door, but did arrange for a glazier to replace the glass in the rear door. It declined to comment on matters in its stage 1 complaint response on 1 August 2023, due to ongoing legal matters. While this Service appreciates that the landlord was in a difficult position at this time, it made no effort to reschedule these works following their approval by the resident’s solicitor.
  6. On 18 and 31 August, it raised routine works as the resident requested a front door canopy to stop leaking. When it attended on 20 September 2023, he stated there was nothing wrong with the door and so it cancelled works. It raised further works on 28 September 2023 for a draughty and leaking rear door, but it cancelled them on 9 November 2023 as its contractors could not access the property. On this occasion, while it attended within its policy timescales, there was little that it could do as he refused works, and it had issues gaining access.
  7. In a further complaint on 31 October 2023, the resident raised leaking through the front door as an issue. Landlord works records state that it completed overhauls of the doors on 21 November 2023, but it is unclear whether these were external or internal doors. It did not address this element of his complaint in its stage 2 response of 8 December 2023, but did raise works to repair lounge windows and two external doors on 30 January 2024 with a target date of 12 March 2024. It should have responded to his complaint point as part of its response, however, matters seemed to have become confusing for it due to the number of complaints and reports it received.
  8. On 20 March 2024, the landlord fitted an extra draught seal to windows in the property. It raised further works on 22 April 2024 for draughty bedroom windows. Its contractors attended the resident’s property on 30 April 2024 and repaired 3 doors in the property that it should have repaired previously. During this visit, they noted that all windows were working perfectly and that a previous operative had provided all windows with draught strips. This was a definitive response to a long-term issue.
  9. In a call between the landlord and resident on 24 May 2024, he confirmed that it had repaired all windows but stated that they were still draughty. In a further stage 2 complaint response on 7 June 2024, it confirmed that it had made an improvement request to install a new door canopy or weatherboard but made no further mention of the windows to offer further advice or outline the steps it had taken since its December 2023 response to clarify matters for him.  
  10. In conclusion, while the landlord faced obvious challenges with rectifying the draught from windows and doors in the property, it did not always arrange or complete works that it had identified in a timely manner, and it did not address this appropriately in its complaint responses. The resident’s solicitor and the landlord agreed to the schedule of works in June 2023, but it did not complete works to overhaul the windows until March 2024. This was a delay of around 9 months, which exceeded its policy timescale of routine repairs.
  11. This Service acknowledges that the amount of repair requests and complaints the landlord received from the resident would have certainly complicated matters for it, however, this did leave him with windows needing repairs over the entire winter period and as such, a finding of service failure is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Complaint handling

  1. Throughout this report, this Service has referred to complaint handling issues, like delays, in preceding sections for context. These mentions were included to provide more background in relation to other issues raised, but the ultimate finding in this complaint handling section is made with these other matters included.
  2. Between January 2021 and December 2023, the resident made 10 complaints to the landlord about the issues raised. It is clear from the evidence it provided in this case, that it did not acknowledge or respond to all of these. At the time of his complaint, it operated a 3-stage complaints policy, in which if it could not resolve a complaint immediately, it would aim to provide its first response within 15 working days and a second response within 20 working days of escalation. It also stated that it would acknowledge all complaints.
  3. This Service acknowledges that the volume of communication that the landlord received from the resident may have led to some confusion, however, he was clear when raising complaints and its process of responding to these did not appear to be robust. For example, it declined to comment in a stage 1 response on 1 August 2023 as the matter was with his solicitor.
  4. The Ombudsman’s guidance on pre–action protocol for housing conditions encourages landlords to take appropriate steps to ensure there is effective communication between its own teams and the resident, throughout the repairs and complaints process. A matter does not become part of legal process until proceedings have been issued. It is important that landlords do not disengage from any open complaint or the repair issue itself. A comment about legal action or commencing the protocol does not constitute legal proceedings. Therefore, it should have continued to respond to his complaints throughout the period of the pre-action protocol and continued managing repairs.
  5. The Code (current at the time of the complaint), states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. In its response, it must also confirm the following, in writing, at the completion of stage 2:
    1. The complaint stage.
    2. The complaint definition.
    3. The decision on the complaint.
    4. The reasons for any decisions made.
    5. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
    6. Details of any outstanding actions.
    7. Details of how to escalate the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service if the resident remains dissatisfied.
  6. It was not until receiving the resident’s complaints in October 2023 that the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response for some of the issues on 8 December 2023. In this response, it apologised for the delay in responding the to resident, but it failed to mention any prior failures to acknowledge or respond to complaints. It did not offer any alternative forms redress for the delays and identified service failures other than its apology. It also failed to acknowledge all the complaint points he had raised. Its response was not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  7. The landlord provided a further stage 2 response on 7 June 2024 following intervention from the Ombudsman. In this response, it addressed the final points that were missing from its first response on 8 December 2023. Its response was thorough in explaining the history of the final complaint points and it did offer to send him a compensation form if he wished to request payment for distress or damages to personal belongings but made no formal offer itself.
  8. Overall, while the landlord may have found it difficult to manage the amount of repair requests and complaints the resident made, it failed to respond to any of his complaints in 2021. It provided stage 1 responses in 2023 but did not respond to any complaints at stage 2 until December 2023. Part of this was due its refusal to respond to some complaints due to ongoing pre-action for a disrepair claim between February and August 2023, but it confused matters by acknowledging and providing stage 1 responses for some issues in April 2023. Its complaint handling was disjointed and not managed in accordance with its own complaints policy. As such, a finding of service failure is appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of issues with the central heating system.
    2. Requests for adaptations to his kitchen.
    3. Reports of subsidence in the rear garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of draughts from the front door and windows.
    2. Associated formal complaints.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the toilet and associated drainage systems.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £500, broken down as follows:
      1. £100 for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of draughts from the front door and windows.
      2. £100 for the failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
      3. £300 for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet and associated drainage systems.
    2. Send a written apology to the resident, from a senior member of staff, for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord complete a stock condition survey at the resident’s property to identify when works will be required to replace or renew the boiler and windows, along with all other relevant fixtures and fittings.