Birmingham City Council (202327343)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327343

Birmingham City Council

13 May 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:
1. the resident’s request for further information about a service charge.
2. the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident was a leaseholder under agreement from September 2008 until July 2022. The landlord is a local authority and freeholder of the property.
The landlord sent a service charge to the resident on 21 March 2022 that requested payment of £381.94. This included a £165 variable repair charge. The resident queried what the repairs were on 29 March 2022. The landlord replied to the resident on the same date and said there had been 2 repairs for water leaks in communal areas.
The resident requested further repair information from the landlord on 29 June 2022. The landlord responded to the resident on 5 July 2022 and asked that they complete a Subject Access Request (SAR) form.
The resident moved from the property in July 2022.
On 9 October 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The resident said the insurer could have covered the repair costs, instead of these costs being charged to residents. The resident asked the landlord for repair information to make a claim but had not heard back from it.
On 10 October 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and sent its stage 1 response to them on 31 October 2022. The landlord said:
1. it had not received a SAR form from the resident, and it had not received a request for information from the insurer.
2. it asked the resident to complete a SAR form and provided a link to it.
3. it apologised to the resident for any delays experienced.
On 6 March 2023, the resident told the landlord they felt it had ignored their information requests. On 8 March 2023, the landlord provided the resident further information about the communal repairs.
On 10 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact on 6 March 2023 as an escalation of their complaint. The landlord provided its final response on 29 March 2023. The landlord said:
1. it received the SAR form from the resident’s solicitor on 6 February 2023.
2. on 8 March 2023, it had provided the resident information about the repairs.
3. it apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint procedure

On 6 June 2023, the landlord told the resident it had written off the repair costs from the March 2022 service charge. The landlord confirmed the actual cost of repairs with a 10% management fee was £181.50. And that the £181.50 repair costs had been deducted from the service charge account.
The resident contacted this Service on 30 October 2023. The resident said they wanted to pay an outstanding service charge, but the landlord refused to confirm the amount owed. The resident also told us on 27 December 2024 the landlord had previously stopped a gardening service charge but had not backdated a refund for it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s complaint concerns the landlord’s handing of, and response to, their request for further information about a service charge so the resident could submit an insurance claim. We should make it clear that the Ombudsman cannot review complaints that concern the level of service charge. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or liability in the same way an insurance provider would.
We can, however, assess if the landlord’s communication with, and responses to, the resident about the service charge were appropriate, reasonable and in line with policy and procedure.
The landlord asked the resident to complete a Subject Access Request (SAR) form as part of their request for information. The ICO is better placed to assess concerns about a SAR. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was set up to deal with concerns about data handling by organisations. The ICO may be able to assess the regulatory aspects of the resident’s complaint about the information provided, as this is not within the Ombudsman’s remit.
However, we can assess the landlord’s communication with the resident about their information request, and whether it followed policy and procedure and acted reasonably, taking account the circumstances of the case.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to other issues with the landlord, such as gardening services charges. This did not form part of the original complaint brought to us, and it is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint.
This investigation will only consider the issues addressed in the landlord’s complaints responses. The resident can address issues that have not been part of a formal complaint directly with the landlord, if they choose to do so.

The resident’s request for further information about a service charge

The landlord sent a service charge invoice to the resident on 21 March 2022, and this included a £165 charge for repairs to the building.
The lease and the leaseholder handbook say:
1. the resident agrees to pay the service charge every year.
2. the landlord will supply a copy of the service charge to the resident on written request and without charge.
3. within six months of the service charge, the resident can ask for accounts and other documentation that relate to it.
Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says:
1. where a service charge is payable in advance, and that amount changes, the landlord must adjust, repay, or reduce, future service charges.
2. where a resident asks for service charge information, the landlord must provide information such as accounts, receipts, and other documentation supporting the service charge summary, within 1 month of receiving the request.
On 29 March 2022, the resident asked the landlord about the repairs in the service charge summary and if the service charge should be pro-rated because they were due to move property.
The landlord responded to the resident on 29 March 2022 and attached a brief breakdown of repairs in relation to March 2022’s service charge. This information showed the resident there had been 2 water leaks in communal areas. The landlord explained to the resident that they had to contribute to the repairs, under the terms of the lease.
It was fair for the landlord to provide repair information to the resident and that it confirmed the service charge was payable under the terms of the lease. The assurance the service charge payment was due, ensured the resident was aware of their obligation to make payment under the lease terms.
On 29 June 2022, the resident requested further repair information from the landlord. There is no evidence showing what service charge information the resident requested at that time.
On 5 July 2022, the landlord asked the resident to submit a SAR form, before it could provide further repair information. The landlord said it posted a copy of the form to the resident in August 2022, but there is no record of the date the form was sent.
It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps to ensure landlords meet their obligations. The landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. The fact the landlord does not have evidence, such as the date it posted the SAR form to the resident, is a shortfall of its record keeping.
On 14 September 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the insurer could cover the repair costs, and the resident needed questions answered about the repairs. The resident asked the landlord for the following:
1. where the burst pipe was.
2. the date the pipe burst.
3. a breakdown of repair costs.
The landlord previously told the resident that it would not provide service charge information until the resident completed a SAR form. It was not in line with the lease that the landlord had not provided information and documentation about the communal repairs to answer the resident’s queries.
It was also not appropriate for the landlord to withhold service charge information that could answer the resident’s questions. The landlord had not paid due regard to the 1-month timescale to respond. This is a failure of its service and had delayed the resident’s access to service charge information.
The resident complained to the landlord on 9 October 2022 that they had not received further information about the repairs. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 31 October 2022. The landlord explained it had not received a SAR form and therefore could not provide the repair information. This was unreasonable.
On 14 November 2022, the resident told the landlord they had not received the SAR form. The landlord posted a copy of the SAR form to the resident on 21 November 2022 and 24 November 2022.
On 6 February 2023, the landlord internally recognised it did not need a SAR form from the resident to answer their queries.
On 16 February 2023, the landlord told the resident it will provide information requested about the repair service charge from March 2022. The resident chased the landlord for the repair information on 6 March 2023.
On 8 March 2023, the landlord provided the resident the dates the repairs were completed, what the repairs were for, and the cost to leaseholders. It was reasonable that the landlord answered some of the resident’s queries. Although, it was unreasonable and not in line with the lease that the landlord had not answered or provided documentation of a breakdown of repair costs, and that it had taken over 7 months to answer some of the queries.
The time the landlord had taken to respond to the resident’s queries did not pay due regard to the 1-month timescale it had to respond, as set out in legislation. It was also unreasonable the landlord had repeatedly requested the resident to complete a form it later found it did not need. This delay to provide information was not fair to the resident, and not in line with the lease.
The resident said the landlord made them “go around in circles” to receive repair information. The resident also felt their information requests had gone unheard. The landlord’s delay to provide information about March 2022’s service charge had clearly inconvenienced and frustrated the resident.
The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 29 March 2023, where it confirmed it had received the SAR form from the resident’s solicitor and had provided further repair information to the resident on 8 March 2023.
Since the landlord provided its final response, it had made the discretionary decision to write off the total repair charge of £181.50 from the March 2022 service charge. The landlord said it had deducted £181.50 from the service charge account for the property. This is what the resident had asked for.
In summary, the landlord found it had unnecessarily requested a SAR form from the resident for over 7 months. And it had not provided information to answer the resident’s service charge queries. The landlord had not recognised this failing in its responses to the resident, and this is not in line with our dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes. Therefore, we find there has been maladministration in its handling of the service charge information request.
The landlord has said it had deducted £181.50 from the March 2022 service charge as it could not find further information about it, although this did not fully consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Considering our remedies guidance, a fair amount to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, is to pay the resident a total of £150. This takes account of the distress and inconvenience to the resident, who chased the landlord for a year before information was provided about the service charge and had also engaged the services of a solicitor.

The associated complaint

Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that was in place when the resident raised their complaint, landlords must ensure they had:
1. acknowledged a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days.
2. responded to the complaint within 10 working days from logging it.
  1. it could communicate a 10-working day extension to the resident, if needed.
3. if the resident requested a stage 2 response, the landlord should provide the final response within 20 working days.
  1. it could communicate a 10-working day extension to the resident, if needed.
  2. if it needs a longer extension, both parties should agree it.
4. if the resident requested a stage 3 response to their complaint, the landlord must respond within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The landlord’s policy was aligned with the Code at the time of the complaint.
The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 9 October 2022 via email and had until 15 October 2022 to acknowledge it. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 October 2022, which was in line with the Code.
The landlord had until 24 October 2022 to provide the resident its stage 1 response or communicate an extension to respond. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident late 5 working days late, on 31 October 2022. The landlord had not requested an extension and had provided its response late. This was not in line with its policy and the Code and is a failure of its service.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 6 March 2023. The landlord had until 3 April 2023 to respond. The landlord provided the stage 2 response on 29 March 2023. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
In summary, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident late. This was an unnecessary delay for the resident, and the landlord had not recognised this failure within its complaint responses. Therefore, we find that there had been service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
After careful consideration, and in line with our remedy’s guidance, a fair amount to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the delay, is to pay the resident £50.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s information request about the service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. provide a full apology to the resident for the errors identified in this report.
2. pay total compensation of £200 to the resident, broken down as follows:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for service charge information.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days from the date of this determination. Evidence of compliance includes copies of letters sent to the resident and a screen shot, receipt, or other evidence that shows compensation has been paid to the resident.

Recommendation

We recommend that the landlord:
1. writes to the resident within 28 days of this determination to confirm the updated service charge amount from March 2022, with the £181.50 repair charges deducted from the total.