Birmingham City Council (202330777)

Background

1. The resident moved into his bungalow on 12 March 2018. Laminate flooring was already in place in the hallway. He was unhappy that the landlord would not repair or replace it, stating it was his responsibility. He told them he was unable to complete the work due to physical and financial limitations.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of repairs to the laminate flooring in the hallway
   2. the resident’s complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports to the laminate flooring in the hallway
   2. no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

We have made no orders to the landlord.

Summary of reasons

The laminate flooring repair

4. The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to support its position that the laminate flooring was the resident’s responsibility. It did not fully consider the resident’s circumstances or offer appropriate support.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded in line with its policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

6. During recent contact with us the resident said he was also experiencing issues with his bedroom flooring. In the interest of fairness, this investigation will look at the matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 9 November 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.

What we did investigate

7. The evidence shows that the resident began reporting issues with the laminate flooring in the hallway in January 2022. Therefore, he had benefitted from the laminate flooring for 4 years without any defects. His repair reports varied, including references to “loose floorboards” and “loose skirting boards.” By January 2023, the landlord had attended on 6 occasions.
8. On each visit, the landlord identified issues with the laminate flooring and confirmed it was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord responded appropriately to these reports by acting in line with its policy and arranging inspections within 30 days of each report. This demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously and was committed to assessing its responsibilities through its visits.
9. During a visit on 31 March 2023, the landlord confirmed again that the issue was with the laminate flooring, which was peeling, not the floorboards. Following this, the resident made a complaint, stating he wanted the flooring repaired or replaced as it was present when he moved in and he was unable to complete the work himself.
10. The stage 1 response confirmed the work was not the landlord’s responsibility to repair. This was appropriate and in line with its tenancy conditions which does not list laminate flooring as landlord’s responsibility.
11. The landlord did not provide evidence that it had considered any sign-up documents or correspondence with the resident regarding responsibility for the laminate flooring at the start of the tenancy. This was a missed opportunity to review any agreements made when the resident moved in. Doing so would have confirmed the landlord’s position and reassured the resident that it had fully considered the matter. However, once the resident began reporting issues with the laminate flooring, the landlord consistently advised that the flooring was his responsibility. This position remained unchanged throughout all repair visits.
12. The landlord did not address the resident’s concern about being unable to complete the work himself. This was a missed opportunity. There is no evidence that the landlord considered if it could offer advice or signpost the resident to agencies that might assist with funding or assistance to replace the flooring. This lack of response from the landlord on this would have left the resident frustrated that the landlord was not helping him.
13. As the issue remained unresolved, the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. The landlord maintained its position, and it was reasonable that it offered the free support available to dispose of the flooring for the resident.
14. Although the landlord had no vulnerabilities listed for the resident, he told it that he was unable to complete the work himself physically and financially. The stage 2 investigation was another missed opportunity for the landlord to consider signposting to additional help. This would have caused further frustration for the resident as he continued to experience issues with the flooring with no other options to explore.
15. The response referred to the landlord’s empty property repair standard which outlined that flooring should be in good repair before it lets a property. The response confirmed as the floor covering was in good condition it was gifted to the resident to provide a financial saving.
16. At stage 2 there was another missed opportunity by the landlord to provide sign up documents or inventory. This would have helped demonstrate the flooring was in good condition at the start of the tenancy and evidence the resident was aware it had been gifted. The landlord relied on an assumption, that it gifted the flooring to the resident and the conditions of this explained, rather than recorded evidence. The landlord’s failure to provide evidence to support its position is likely to have caused the resident frustration. He still felt it was not his responsibility, as it was in the property when he moved in.
17. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s initial reports and acted in line with its repair policy. The landlord maintained a consistent position that the laminate flooring was the resident’s responsibility. However, it would have supported its approach by providing evidence to support this view. It also did not fully consider the resident’s circumstances or offer appropriate support. These failings contributed to the resident’s frustration and did not demonstrate a fair and reasonable approach to resolving the resident’s concerns. Therefore, we have found service failure and made an order as above.
18. The landlord has recently apologised to the resident, offered £1,000 compensation and is replacing the hallway flooring. This offer appropriately acknowledges the resident’s frustration. While this is a positive outcome, it missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint earlier by not making this offer during its own complaints process. Therefore, it does not affect our decision regarding the identified service failure, as the landlord made the offer after we had considered the complaint. But, no further order to apologise or award of compensation is required when considering the failings in this case.

19. Our Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. Our findings are:
20. The landlord set out a 3-stage complaint policy, which was compliant with the Code in effect at the time of the complaint.
21. Its policy said:
    1. at pre-complaint stage it aimed to settle the complaint immediately
    2. if the issue required an investigation it will investigate at stage 1 and respond within 15 working days
    3. if the resident wanted a review it will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days
22. The landlord responded at stage 1 within 19 working days. While this was a failure to respond within its policy at that time, it was only by 4 days and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was inconvenienced as a result.
23. The landlord responded at stage 2 within 19 working days. This was within its policy timescales.
24. There was a 4-day delay overall, this caused minimal impact on the resident. Therefore, we find no maladministration.
25. The landlord has since changed its policy and now operates a 2 stage complaints procedure that is compliant with our current Code. Therefore, we do not need to make an order in relation to its complaint’s procedure.

Learning

26. The landlord responded promptly and consistently to the resident’s repair reports, arranging inspections within its stated timeframes. Maintaining this approach helps build trust with residents and ensures that issues are assessed and managed in a timely and transparent manner.
27. Where a resident is unable to carry out a responsibility due to physical or financial limitations, the landlord should consider signposting to relevant support services, charities, or local agencies that may offer practical or financial assistance. This would demonstrate a more supportive and proactive approach.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord should ensure that any agreements made at the start of a tenancy are clearly documented and retained. This includes signed inventories, disclaimers, or correspondence confirming the arrangement. This would help avoid disputes and provide clarity for both parties.

Communication

29. Overall, communication with the resident was good. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports and provided advice during the visits.