Birmingham City Council (202320197)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320197

Birmingham City Council

19 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns regarding damage to the roof and chimney, a soil pipe, and a boundary dispute.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord from June 2006 to February 2024, when she exercised her right to buy the property. The property is a 3 bedroom inner terrace house. There is reference in the landlord’s records to the resident having a disability.
On 5 June 2023 the resident reported to the landlord concern about the condition of the roof tiles. The landlord raised a works order and marked this as complete on the same day. A new works order was raised on 6 June 2023 for an inspection of the roof, as the resident had reported a hole in the chimney. This was marked as complete on the same day.
On 22 June 2023 the landlord raised a works order for an inspection of the rear roof around the chimney, neighbour’s dormer, and inside the loft space, to check for leaks.
On 30 June 2023 the resident reported that the neighbour had put a soil pipe in the shared side entryway, which made the entryway narrower. She said the neighbour’s work to the roof, including installation of a dormer, had damaged her chimney. Also on 30 June 2023 the neighbour contacted the landlord regarding a boundary dispute with the resident. The neighbour said their deeds showed they owned half of the shared side entryway. The landlord advised it owned all of the entryway.
On 5 July 2023 the landlord’s contracts works officer visited the resident and photographed the chimney, side entryway, and the rear fence boundary.
On 7 July 2023 the landlord’s housing manager and another officer visited the resident to discuss the neighbour’s work to the roof/loft, the soil pipe, and the boundary dispute. On the same day the landlord raised a works order for a structural inspection of the rear chimney.
On 11 July 2023 the landlord’s contractor inspected the roof and chimney of the resident and the neighbour’s properties.
On 24 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that she was unhappy with the way the housing manager was dealing with her concerns. She was dissatisfied that she had not received an update since the visit on 7 July 2023.
On 31 July 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said it was satisfied that the actions taken by the housing manager would get the issue resolved, but acknowledged it had not kept the resident fully informed. It said it had advised the neighbour some remedial roof works were needed, and they had agreed to this. It was waiting for a response from the local authority planning department regarding whether the neighbour had permission to build the dormer. It was waiting for further information to confirm ownership of the side entryway. It would update the resident as soon as it had further information.
On 24 August 2023 the resident told the landlord she was not happy as she had been told her case had been closed. She said she did not want housing officer to deal with her any more as she did not think they could carry out the role. The landlord escalated her complaint to stage 2.
On 10 October 2023 the housing manager provided a detailed written update to the resident, including the following key points:
1. After the neighbour had done remedial works to the roof, the landlord would inspect to ensure construction industry standards were met.
2. It was unable to take any action regarding the soil pipe, as the neighbour owned 50% of the shared side entryway, and had fitted the soil pipe next to their own wall. There was still enough space to take bins out.
3. It had asked the neighbour to employ a land surveyor to produce a report regarding the rear fence boundary. It would consider this before agreeing to move the boundary.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 November 2023. It apologised for its delayed response, and any misunderstandings and inconvenience caused in the handling of the resident’s concerns. It was awaiting further information from the planning department. It had taken time to advise the resident of proposed actions due to technical issues that required investigation. However, it was satisfied the housing manager had conducted their investigation appropriately, in line with policy and procedure.
Following further correspondence from the resident on 17 November 2023, the landlord told the resident on 28 November 2023 that, while it believed the housing manager had acted professionally, it had allocated a new housing manager to deal with the case. It also confirmed the neighbour had planning permission to build the dormer, but the works were not yet fully signed off by building control. It provided an update on the remedial works the neighbour had been instructed to carry out to the roof.
The tenancy was ended on 25 February 2024 as the resident purchased the property via Right to Buy. At this time the neighbour had not completed all of the remedial works to the roof.

Assessment and findings

Roof and chimney, soil pipe, boundary dispute

The landlord’s repairs policy included the following timescales:
1. Emergency repairs – where danger or injury of damage to property – response within 2 hours.
2. Urgent repairs – concerned with protecting health and safety or security of property – 1, 3 or 7 working days based on the requirements of the Right to Repair Regulations 1994.
3. Routine repairs – completed within 30 days. Larger repairs that may need special materials and arrangements. In these cases the tenant will be advised what timescale to expect.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask the landlord for all relevant records. If there are disputed facts and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
Although the 5 and 6 June 2023 works orders were marked as complete on the same day, the landlord has not provided any evidence to show what actions, if any, it took. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence we have been provided with, it is not possible to conclude that the landlord responded promptly and appropriately in response to the resident’s reports about the roof tiles and chimney.
The records provided by the landlord suggest that the resident made a further report on 22 June 2023, expressing concern regarding leaks from the rear roof around the chimney and neighbour’s dormer. On 30 June 2023 she told the landlord she was concerned that the neighbour’s works had damaged her chimney. It was unreasonable that the resident had to report the same issue more than once to get the landlord to take action.
The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s 22 June 2023 and 30 June 2023 reports was broadly appropriate. On 22 June 2023 it raised a works order for an inspection, and to check for leaks. Its contracts works officer visited and carried out a visual inspection on 5 July 2023. The housing manager visited to discuss the resident’s concerns on 7 July 2023. On the same day a works order for a structural inspection of the rear chimney was raised.
The landlord has said (in its 28 November 2023 correspondence to the resident) that the housing manager advised the resident on 7 July 2023, that they would investigate the issues raised, but given the complexity of the matter, investigations may take longer than anticipated. However, it has not provided any contemporaneous evidence of this. In the absence of evidence, it is not possible to conclude that the landlord acted early to manage the resident’s expectations. However, the records show the contracts works officer advised the resident on 26 July 2023 that the housing manager would not be able to “action all issues immediately” as they were liaising with the neighbour and “multiple officers/departments within council.”
The inspection of the roof and chimney was carried out on 11 July 2023, exceeding the landlord’s 30 day target for a routine repair. The landlord has not provided a contemporaneous record or report of the findings of the 11 July 2023 roof inspection, which indicates poor knowledge and information management. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates the chimney was found to be in good condition with no damage. However, remedial work to the roof by the neighbour was required, including:
1. Either installing a secret valley, or replacing the bitumen flashings with lead flashings at the front and back of the main roof.
2. Removing the bitumen flashings from one of the ridge tiles and replacing it with appropriate mortar.
There is no evidence that the findings of the 11 July 2023 roof inspection were promptly communicated to the resident, or that she was, at any point, reassured that there was no damage to the chimney. The contracts works officer noted, on 26 July 2023, that they would inform the resident on 28 July 2023 that the chimney was in good condition with no works needed. However, no evidence has been seen that this was done. The inadequate communication on the part of the landlord caused the resident unnecessary stress, and contributed to her perception that it did not take her concerns seriously.
Furthermore, on 6 July 2023 the landlord gave the resident an appointment for a visit by her neighbourhood housing officer on 27 July 2023, but this was cancelled the day before, with the explanation that a further visit was not necessary as “the issues were already being investigated.” This would likely have been confusing for the resident and, in the light of the limited communication from the landlord thus far, have contributed to her view that the landlord was ignoring her concerns.
On 31 July 2023 the landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged there had been a gap in its communication with the resident. This was appropriate. It was also appropriate that it advised the resident regarding the remedial roof works the neighbour had agreed to, and explained it was waiting for a response from the local authority planning department regarding the dormer, and ownership of the side entryway. The landlord reassured the resident it would update her as soon as it had further information.
However, following this the landlord’s communication continued to be lacking. There was no further contact with the resident until 24 August 2023 when the resident telephoned the landlord to ask for an update. While it may have been that the landlord was still waiting for information from the local authority, given the resident’s complaint and its acknowledgement that it had not communicated adequately, it would have been reasonable for it to make regular contact to outline the steps it was taking to progress matters, and to confirm it was still waiting for information.
On 24 August 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the business action case regarding the roof, chimney, soil pipe and boundary dispute was closed. She expressed dissatisfaction with this. She also said she did not want to deal with the housing manger any more, as she lacked confidence in their ability to carry out the role. While the landlord later (in its stage 2 response) apologised for closing the case had been closed in error, this was confusing for the resident at the time, contributed to her view that the landlord was ignoring her concerns, and further damaged the landlord/tenant relationship.
Following escalation of the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 24 August 2023, there was some improvement in the landlord’s communication with the resident. On 25 August 2023 the housing manager informed the resident they were still waiting for a response from the planning department regarding the boundary dispute and roofing works. On 7 September 2023 they said they were still waiting for a response regarding the boundary issues, but were in the process of arranging a joint visit with the contract works officer, or a roofing expert, to inspect the neighbour’s roof works. On 22 September 2023 they said they, together with a contractor and the contract works officer, would visit the resident and the neighbour on 25 September 2023.
The resident has told the landlord and this Service that she was unhappy that the housing manager made contact with her the very next day after she had told the landlord she did not want to deal with them anymore. While the landlord was entitled to take the view, after investigating, that it was not necessary to allocate a new housing manager, it should have communicated and explained its position to the resident before she was contacted by the housing manager again.
On 10 October 2023 the housing manager provided a detailed written update to the resident:
1. They listed remedial works to the roof it had asked the neighbour to carry out. After the works were done it would inspect to ensure construction industry standards were met.
2. It was unable to take any action regarding the soil pipe, as the neighbour owned 50% of the shared side entryway, and had fitted the soil pipe next to his own wall. There was still enough space to take bins out.
3. It had asked the neighbour to employ a land surveyor to produce a report regarding the rear fence boundary. It would consider this before agreeing to move the boundary.
4. As the case was complex it would take time to resolve.
5. They would be on annual leave for the next month, and would progress the case on their return.
It was appropriate that the landlord made its position in relation to the resident’s concerns clear, and explained the next steps. However, approximately 4 months had passed since the resident first brought these matters to the landlord’s attention. We acknowledge the landlord required information from the local authority regarding whether planning permission had been granted for the neighbour’s dormer, and the boundary disputes in respect of the soil pipe, and the rear fence. However, as it has not provided any evidence of its correspondence with the local authority regarding these matters, it is not possible to say it requested the information in a timely manner, and was proactive in pursuing this.
We note that the housing manager was on annual leave from 3 August 2023 to 10 August 2023, and for a month in October 2023, and that this would have delayed matters. Especially given the resident’s complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange for another officer to have conduct of the case in the housing manager’s extended absence.
Following the 10 October 2023 correspondence from the housing manager, there is no evidence of any further update to the resident until the stage 2 response, dated 10 November 2023. Given the circumstances, the gap in communication was too long, was stressful for the resident, and further damaging to the already strained landlord/tenant relationship.
It was appropriate that the stage 2 response apologised for confusion caused by closing the resident’s case in error, and provided an update. The landlord was entitled to take the view, after investigating, that it was not necessary to allocate a new housing manager. As it stated that the housing manager had conducted their investigation in line with policy and procedure, it would have been good practice for it to have provided details of the relevant policy and procedure, which it did not do.
Considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the roof and chimney, soil pipe, and boundary dispute overall:
1. There is no evidence seen that the landlord responded promptly and appropriately to the resident’s 5 and 6 June 2023 reports about the roof tiles and chimney.
2. The landlord did not adequately manage the resident’s expectations.
3. Its communication with the resident was poor. There is no evidence seen that it updated the resident as soon as information was known, and there were long gaps in communication.
4. It was not sensitive to her stated concerns about the housing manager, as she was contacted by them immediately after her complaint about them, without the landlord first explaining its position.
5. There is no evidence seen that it requested the required from the local authority in a timely manner, and was proactive in pursuing this.
Cumulatively, the above failures constitute maladministration on the part of the landlord. As a result it has been ordered to apologise, pay compensation of £350 and carry out a case review to identify the causes of the failures in this case, and identify learning and service improvement points

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy defined a complaint as: “an expression of dissatisfaction. It can be about the standard of a service provided, or actions the council have or have not taken, which affect someone using council services or those services provided on behalf of the council.” The policy said the landlord would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 48 hours, and respond in full within 15 working days of receipt. It would respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of receipt. No provision is made within the policy for extensions of time. The landlord has since reviewed its complaints policy to bring the timescales in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code), but there is still no provision for extensions.
The timescales published on the landing page of the complaints section of the landlord’s website, when accessed on 17 June 2025, were still those from the old policy.
The resident complained to the landlord on 24 July 2023. No evidence has been seen that the landlord acknowledged the complaint, in breach of its policy and the Code. However, the landlord provided a stage 1 response in 5 working days.
On 24 August 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction regarding:
1. Being told her case was closed.
2. The way the housing manager had handled her concerns regarding the roof, soil pipe and boundary dispute.
Also on 24 August 2023 the landlord the resident it had escalated her complaint to stage 2. However, it should also have logged a new complaint regarding being told her case was closed, as this was a separate, although related issue, which had not already been addressed at stage 1.
In her 18 October 2023 correspondence to the landlord, the resident said she made further complaints on 4 September 2023, 26 September 2023 and 4 October 2023, which had not been acknowledged or responded to by the landlord. We are unable to form a judgement regarding this as we have not been provided with record of these complaints either by the landlord or the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was very late, being provided 56 days after escalation of the complaint. Although the landlord contacted the resident on 27 October 2023 to apologise for the delay, this was already 46 working days after the complaint was escalated. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the delay within the stage 2 response.
Considering the landlord’s complaint handling overall:
1. It did not acknowledge the complaint at stage 1.
2. It did not log a separate complaint in response to the resident’s 24 August 2023 correspondence.
3. The stage 2 response was very late.
An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and rebuild good relationships with residents. However, in this case the landlords complaint management and response delays meant it missed an opportunity to remedy to the core communications failings noted above. In particular it failed to actively provide the resident reassurance that her concerns were being effectively addressed. The consequence was that the resident remained uncertain for longer than necessary and was forced to take avoidable time and trouble to seek out reassurance.
Cumulatively, the above failures constitute maladministration on the part of the landlord. As a result it has been ordered to apologise, pay compensation of £100 and review its complaints policy and procedure to ensure compliance with the Code

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns about the roof and chimney, soil pipe, and boundary dispute.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £450, broken down as follows:
  1. £350 for its handling of the resident’s reported concerns about the roof and chimney, soil pipe, and boundary dispute.
  2. £100 for its complaint handling.
The landlord must carry out a case review to identify the causes of the failures in this case, and identify learning and service improvement points. The review should incorporate its own held records as well as taking into account this report. Specific attention should be given to how its communications and resident expectations might have been better managed. The landlord must share a written report of the review with the resident and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must ensure the complaints handling timescales published on the complaints landing page of its website match its current policy.

Recommendations

It is recommended that relevant staff involved in this case undertake complaint handling learning from our Centre for Learning ( https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/complaint-handling/)