Birmingham City Council (202332678)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property, a 2-bedroom house, with her husband and young children. The landlord is aware she has respiratory health conditions. She reported flooring repairs and damp and mould affecting her living room in July 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Flooring repairs.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Flooring repairs.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. The complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Flooring repairs

4. The landlord did not carry out repair work to the floor in line with its policy timeframes and its communication around the issue was poor. Although it has apologised, it has not provided appropriate remedy to recognise the detriment caused to the resident.

Reports of damp and mould

5. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it responded to reports of damp and mould in line with its policies. It failed to address the issue in its complaint responses which meant it was unable to offer a sufficient resolution for the resident regarding the matter.

Complaint handling

6. There were significant delays by the landlord in its handling of the complaint. Its communication with the resident was poor and it failed to provide appropriate remedy to recognise the impact this caused to her.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

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

7. The resident told us that she and her child were injured due to the hole in the floor. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of damaged floorboards on 14 July 2023 was timely and it attended on the same day to make the area safe. However, its repair records do not detail the action it took at this visit. Due to this it was unable to respond appropriately to her concerns in her complaint that the operative failed to make the area safe and left the property in a hazardous condition. Although in its final response it apologised if this had been the case, its inability to evaluate events due to its poor record keeping likely left the resident frustrated.
9. When initially reporting the flooring repair the resident told the landlord that her son had fallen on the damaged floorboards and injured his head. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this until 7 months later in its final response where it provided its claim form and details for its liability insurers. Given the resident had demonstrated she was clearly distressed and had communicated this on several occasions, its delay in directing her to this procedure was unreasonable.
10. The landlord failed to maintain effective communication with the resident throughout this case. It did not provide regular updates, and she had to spend considerable time chasing for information and progress. These communication failures worsened the situation and increased the impact on her. This likely damaged the relationship between the parties.
11. In the resident’s complaint which she submitted in August 2023, she detailed that repair work was outstanding. However, in its stage 1 response the landlord said that it had completed work to repair the floorboards on 21 July 2023. As it was aware the resident disputed this the landlord should have attended and post inspected its repair work. This was particularly relevant as she had raised concerns that the damaged floor was a safety hazard. Doing so would have meant it was able to ensure that it had resolved the issue and demonstrated to the resident that it was listening to her.
12. The fact the resident continued to report issues with the floor after the completion of the requested repair suggests the initial repair work was not successful. Although the landlord’s records do not allow us to ascertain when it completed the repair work to the floor, its stage 2 response noted that it had done so on 23 February 2024. This was over 7 months from the resident’s notification of the repair and was significantly later than the 30-day timescale for completion of routine repairs set out in its repairs policy.
13. Poor record keeping and delays in responding to the resident’s concerns around the flooring repair work meant the landlord was unable to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. Although it recognised this was the case in its stage 2 response and apologised, it failed to offer any redress in line with its compensation policy in recognition of the distress and inconvenience that its failings had caused to the resident.
14. Our remedies guidance provides for compensation in the range of £100 to £600 for situations like this where there was failure by a landlord that adversely affected the resident causing distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s failure to offer any financial redress to the resident meant it did not adequately recognise the detriment caused to her pursuing the flooring repair work over a 7-month period. The landlord missed the chance to put things right. We have ordered it to pay compensation for its failings.
15. The resident has told us that despite the landlord carrying out repair work, she is still concerned about the condition of the living room floor. We have made an order for the landlord to reinspect the floor.
16. We are aware that following the landlord’s final response the resident submitted a claim relating to injury and damaged items as discussed above. She has told us that she asked it to review its initial refusal of this but she did not receive a response. We have therefore recommended that the landlord review its records and provide a response.

What we did not investigate

17. The resident raised concerns about the affect of the damp and mould on her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a claim for any illness caused via the courts. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

18. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents to manage their expectations. They should also ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with residents on actions taken to resolve damp and mould.
19. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s initial report of damp and mould in her living room on 17 August 2023. Although we appreciate, she raised several issues on this date as part of a complaint, it should have raised a suitable repair job in line with its repair policy to assess the issue.
20. We have not seen any evidence of further reports by the resident relating to damp and mould until 4 months later. On 15 December 2023 she told the landlord there was damp and mould in the living room. It attended to inspect this on 8 January 2024 which was within the 30 day timescale set out in its repair policy. It told the resident that it needed to carry out a damp survey and it would be in touch to get this arranged.
21. The resident chased the landlord for updates on multiple occasions between 9 January 2024 and 20 February 2024. On 22 January 2024 she forwarded a hospital letter detailing her respiratory conditions and concerns about the conditions in her home. There is no evidence that the landlord responded which likely left the resident feeling frustrated and ignored. Its failure to effectively communicate caused her avoidable time and trouble attempting to resolve the matter.
22. We have seen no evidence that the landlord adapted its approach based on its knowledge of the resident’s respiratory conditions. Given the fact that she had highlighted her vulnerability it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that it established if the conditions in the property constituted a hazard. The fact it did not was a failing.
23. The landlord’s records do not clarify if the damp survey took place and there are no records of any further repair work addressing the issue. Due to this we are unable to assess if any action taken by it was proportionate and in line with its policy. It has failed to demonstrate that it was proactively seeking a resolution to the damp and mould or that it kept the resident informed of its actions around the matter.
24. Although the resident raised the damp and mould issue at both stages of her complaint the landlord failed to refer to the matter in any of its responses. Its failure to investigate its handling of the issue meant it missed opportunities to put things right. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to apologise and pay compensation to recognise the detriment caused to the resident by its failings. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
25. The resident has told us that her living room is affected by damp and mould and she is concerned that the landlord has not identified the root cause. We have made an order for the landlord to attend and inspect the issue.

26. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
27. The landlord did not correctly monitor its complaints process which indicates a record keeping failing. It failed to log the resident’s communication of 17 August 2023 as a complaint and only did so following her contact to chase a response on 29 August 2023.
28. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1, 7 working days later than the timescales set out in its policy. Whilst it apologised for this delay in its acknowledgement letter it failed to offer any redress to the resident in its subsequent response, nor did it identify any learning that it would implement as a result.
29. The landlord sent its stage 2 acknowledgement in accordance with the timescales set out in its policy and advised the resident she would receive a response within 20 working days. Despite regularly chasing the landlord for its response between 14 November 2023 and 2 January 2024 it failed to respond to the resident or recognise its delay.
30. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 106 working days after acknowledging the resident’s escalation request, following our intervention. This is significantly longer than the timescales set out in its policy. Although it apologised for the delay in its final response it failed to offer any redress or demonstrate any learning.
31. We have, therefore, made an order for compensation to recognise the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

32. In a special investigation report published in January 2023, we made recommendations for the landlord about its complaint handling, repairs, record keeping and compensation procedure. It is important that landlords keep detailed records about contact, repairs, and services provided. Clear records assist in understanding the condition of a property, monitoring outstanding works and providing accurate information to residents. They also serve as evidence in any external processes which the resident and landlord may engage in. Although we are aware that some events within this case took place during the time the landlord was implementing changes following our special report, it is evident it did not adhere to all learning set out in its action plan. It should review this and ensure it adopts its learning in future cases.