From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Birmingham City Council (202314532)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314532

Birmingham City Council

13 June 2025

 

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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of her child being injured from an outstanding repair.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lives in a purpose-built block of flats with her children.
  2. On 11 April 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord stating that PVC panelling around the entrance to her front door, had fallen off and injured her son. She explained that she reported the issue a few weeks earlier, but the landlord had not acted. She asked for compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her and her son. Later that day, she also reported the issue to her local councillor.
  3. On 12 April 2023, the landlord instructed an operative to renew the panelling around the door frame. On 17 April 2023, the operative returned to check the panelling was still secure.
  4. The resident raised another complaint with the landlord on 7 June 2023. She said her son had started waking up during the night with night terrors because of the incident.
  5. On 14 June 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said that as she initially reported the repair to her local councillor, it only became aware of the issue when she raised a formal complaint. It offered the resident a total of £100 compensation – £50 for the delay in responding to her complaint and £50 for the distress caused by the repair.
  6. On 18 June 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She clarified that she had reported the repair directly to the landlord before raising a formal complaint, and not to her local councillor. She also said the PVC panelling had not been secured properly from the outset, as she often returned home to find it lying on the floor.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 17 July 2023. It said the operative had secured the panelling properly and found no defects when they returned a few days later. The landlord repeated its earlier points but also said the resident had not sought medical treatment for her son at the time of the incident. It asked her to provide evidence of his current symptoms and said it would refer the matter to its legal team for further consideration.
  8. On 11 November 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to our service. She said she remained dissatisfied with how the landlord had handled her concerns. She told us the landlord should have raised the repair itself, regardless of whether she had reported it. She said staff and contractors had been working in the block at the time and would have seen the hazard.
  9. On 4 June 2025, the resident told us the panelling had become loose again and that she was waiting for the landlord to address this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said a repair the landlord failed to resolve caused injury to her son. We acknowledge her concerns and understand the impact this may have had on both her and her son. However, claims of personal injury, fall outside the Ombudsman’s remit. These are matters that can be pursued through the landlord’s public liability insurer or the courts, where medical evidence and any allegations of negligence would be considered. If she believes the landlord’s actions, or lack of action, caused her son harm, the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair reports, not on causation of the injury itself.

Legal policy and framework

  1. The resident’s occupancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including external doors and frames.
  2. The landlord classifies repairs into the following categories:
    1. Emergency – where there is an immediate threat to safety or the property. These should be completed within 24 hours
    2. Urgent repairs – situations that need attention to protect the health and safety of the tenant and property. These should be completed within 7 days
    3. Routine repairs – standard repairs that do not need urgent attention. These should be completed within 30 working days.
  3. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. It aimed to resolve stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (revised 2024 and available on our website), states that landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of her child being injured from an outstanding repair

  1. The resident said she reported the panelling coming loose, a few weeks before raising a formal complaint. The landlord said it held no record of any contact about the issue before her formal complaint on 11 April 2023, and we have seen no evidence to show she reported it earlier. As an impartial service, we cannot determine whether an earlier report was made. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat 11 April 2023, as the point at which it became aware of the issue and respond from that date. This does not mean we dispute the resident’s account but simply reflects the limits of the evidence available. As an independent service we must base our decisions on the evidence available.
  2. The landlord’s records show that it initially raised the repair as a routine issue and left the resident a voicemail to say it would take a few weeks to complete. This did not align with its own repairs policy, which required it to treat issues posing a risk to health or safety as urgent. Given the resident had reported that the panelling had fallen and injured her son, the landlord should have considered whether the issue posed an ongoing risk and assessed it more urgently. Its failure to do so was inappropriate and likely left the resident feeling that it had not taken her concerns seriously.
  3. The evidence shows the resident contacted her local councillor on the same day she raised her formal complaint to the landlord. The councillor then raised the matter with the landlord, and the repair was completed the following day. While we cannot say with reasonable certainty that this intervention led to a quicker response, the timing suggests the matter was escalated internally. This was a positive outcome and showed the landlord was capable of responding within emergency timescales when needed. However, it also showed the resident needed to take additional steps to secure a timely response. The landlord could have acted more promptly when it first became aware of the issue, without the need for escalation.
  4. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident said the panelling had not been secured properly before the repair on 12 April 2023, as she often came home to find it lying on the floor. The landlord appeared to misunderstand this, treating it as a new report that the panelling had come loose again after the repair. In fact, the resident was referring to the condition of the panelling before that point. We have seen no evidence in the repair records to show she raised this concern with the landlord on prior occasions. In the absence of contemporaneous reports, we cannot draw conclusions about the condition of the panelling prior to the repair. However, the landlord’s misunderstanding meant it did not fully respond to the concern the resident raised. It should take more care in future to understand the context of residents’ complaints. If it needed clarification, it could have contacted the resident before issuing its complaint response to check if the panel issue was ongoing.
  5. The resident told us the landlord should have identified the condition of the panelling earlier, as staff and contractors were regularly on site at the time and would have walked past her door. In her view, they should have noticed it had come loose and reported it. It is reasonable to expect staff and contractors to report visible defects or safety hazards when carrying out visits. If the panelling was visibly loose before 11 April 2023, this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify and resolve the issue sooner. However, as we have seen no evidence to confirm there was an issue prior to 11 April 2023, we cannot say whether the defect would have been apparent to them during those visits.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation to acknowledge the distress caused by the repair. It also invited the resident to provide medical evidence for its legal team to consider further. This was an appropriate response. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance to manage the cost of negligence claims, and the landlord would not be obliged to consider a claim outside the liability insurance process. While we cannot assess claims for personal injury, the landlord recognised the emotional impact the incident had on the household and signposted a proper route for the resident to seek further redress if she believed harm had occurred.
  7. Overall, the landlord carried out the repair within 24 hours of becoming aware of the issue, which was in line with its obligations. While there were some shortcomings in how it initially categorised the repair and interpreted part of the stage 2 complaint, these did not materially affect the handling of the resident’s concerns. Its offer of £50 compensation aligned with what we usually order in cases where a landlord’s service failure involved a limited number of minor issues. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (available on our website).
  8. We therefore find that the landlord provided reasonable redress in response to the resident’s reports of her child being injured from an outstanding repair.
  9. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered in its stage 1 complaint response, to acknowledge the distress caused by the repair

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 11 April 2023. Although the landlord took steps to repair the panelling, it did not respond to the complaint at that stage. This would have likely left the resident feeling ignored and uncertain about whether her concerns were being taken seriously. She raised a further complaint on 7 June 2023, and the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response 6 working days later. While this was a prompt response, the resident should not have needed to complain twice for the landlord to address her concerns. The landlord did not take early ownership of the complaint and missed an opportunity to provide reassurance at a time when the resident was understandably distressed.
  2. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said the resident reported the repair to her local councillor instead of to the landlord. However, her complaint did not say this. She said she contacted her councillor on the same day she submitted her complaint, not before. This inaccuracy suggests the landlord did not review the resident’s complaint carefully or take full account of what she had reported. Landlords have a responsibility to carry out thorough and accurate investigations, particularly where a complaint involves concerns about safety or harm. A lack of attention to detail can undermine trust in the process and leave residents feeling that their concerns are not being properly understood or addressed.
  3. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation to acknowledge the delay in responding to her stage 1 complaint. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above, this amount was appropriate where a service failure has occurred but had limited impact.
  4. Overall, the landlord initially failed to engage with the complaint and made an error in its response. However, as it later issued a timely reply and offered proportionate redress, we find that it has reasonably resolved the resident’s concerns about how it handled her formal complaint.
  5. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered in its stage 1 complaint response, to acknowledge the delay in responding to her stage 1 complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer prior to our involvement, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports of her child being injured from an outstanding repair.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer prior to our involvement, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the following compensation:
    1. £50 it already offered in its stage 1 complaint response, to acknowledge the distress caused by the repair
    2. £50 it already offered in its stage 1 complaint response, to acknowledge the delay in responding to her stage 1 complaint
  2. The landlord should contact the resident urgently to arrange an appointment to repair the loose panelling.
  3. The determinations made in this report are based on the above recommendations being completed.