Birmingham City Council (202337966)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337966

Birmingham City Council

30 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. Leaks and associated repairs.
2. Damp and mould.
3. A contractor’s conduct.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord a local authority. The tenancy commenced via a deed of assignment in November 2014. The property was a two bedroom house.
The resident had previously brought a complaint to The Housing Ombudsman Service during 2023 which was determined. This complaint was about a leak and damp and mould. We made a finding of severe maladministration in May 2023.
Between June 2023 and when the resident raised a complaint on 10 January 2024, multiple repairs had been raised regarding a leak in various areas of the home, this included the radiator, boiler, kitchen sink, shower and bathroom internal water supply. The landlord arranged for operatives to attend at the time.
The resident raised a complaint directly to our service on 10 January 2024. She was unhappy with a contractor’s conduct, stating he smelled of alcohol and did not resolve the leak. She said her property was being damaged with water leaks and pipe leaks, this was damaging her furniture. The resident was seeking compensation and for the landlord to carry out the required works needed.
On 22 July 2024 the resident sent an image to our service of the bathroom damp, mould and leaks. She stated the bathroom was riddled with damp and mould and the pipes were soaking her flooring. She wanted a professional to look at the bathroom.
We asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint in October 2024. However it appeared it had not received a complaint from the resident. It proceeded to investigate her concerns.
The landlord contacted its contractors on 1 November 2024, asking it to confirm the works which were carried out in 2023 following our previous determination. Its contractors stated all works which were previously agreed were completed. The landlord stated there had been a couple of leaks since the determination. These were on:
1. 14 July 2024, leak from the water closet cisterns.
2. 9 January 2024, leak from stop tap.
3. 16 November 2023, leak in the bathroom but when the engineer attended the resident said they no longer needed a plumber.
During November 2024 an inspection of the property was carried out. At the time the surveyor did not see mould on the walls, minimal mould spots were on the window sealant and trickle vents. The surveyor took moisture readings and found there to be high humidity. The inspection identified repairs needed to the downstairs toilet, hallway, living room, two bedrooms, bathroom and boiler cupboard. It also suggested a positive input ventilation system be installed along with humidity fans in both the kitchen and bathroom. Work orders were raised for these. With regards to the resident’s claim that her belongings were damaged, the landlord referred her to make a compensation claim.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 11 November 2024. It explained:
1. It had reviewed its repairs history and could see leaks had been raised from 2014 to 2024. It could see one repair was raised to the toilet cistern, which was completed on 16 July 2024. The landlord agreed to carry out a joint visit with the surveyor to establish what outstanding repairs were needed. It explained any identified works would be carried out.
2. It apologised for the conduct of its operative and explained it would be investigating this further. It confirmed this would be dealt with in accordance with its internal procedures.
3. The landlord stated it had completed a compensation referral and stated its team should be in touch to discuss this.
On 22 November 2024, the resident chased the landlord regarding the compensation claim. In turn, the landlord chased the relevant team regarding this claim. It also explained to the resident all work orders were raised, with a target completion of 30 December 2024.
The resident had requested the landlord replaster. However it explained to the resident no plaster boarding would be carried out as this was not required.
During December 2024, the resident further chased the landlord about the compensation claim. The resident also asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She was unhappy about the landlord’s handling of her reports. She wanted her walls to be replastered, stated her bathroom needed replacing, and she was seeking compensation.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 20 January 2025. It addressed the following points:
1. Failure to complete promised actions to the stage one complaint – the landlord acknowledged a work order raised on 14 November 2024 was still outstanding. It also explained its contractors had attended regarding a second work order but had no access. The landlord was unable to confirm if the appointment was suitable for the resident at the time.
2. The landlord explained its position on replastering the walls and stated this work would not be done.
3. The resident’s request for compensation for damage to property, distress and inconvenience – it explained a compensation referral had previously been sent to the appropriate team on 11 November 2024. It explained it had chased for a decision from the team and once made it would be in touch with the resident.
On 21 January 2025 the contractor emailed the landlord to explain it had attempted to book works in for the second time but the resident had refused. An operative also attended the resident’s property on 27 February 2025 to carry out works, however there was no access.
On 7 March 2025 an operative attended to investigate a leak. They did not find any leaks and stated issues experienced could possibly be condensation. They returned on 10 March 2025 to isolate pipe work.
The landlord scheduled works for the fans and positive input ventilation system to be done during April 2025.
The resident has provided an update on the current situation. She stated that she recently had a ceiling leak which damaged her carpets. Due to the pipe leaks in the bathroom, her flooring, cupboards and skirting boards were damaged. She had been informed by the landlord that the sealant in the bathroom and bedrooms would be done, however this had not taken place. The landlord has not provided us with its position regarding outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

The resident brought a complaint to us in 2023 concerning damp and mould. This case was determined on 17 May 2023 and closed. Whilst this has been noted as context, we will not look into matters previously investigated. This is in accordance with 42.l. of the Housing Scheme which states we may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. We have therefore looked at events which took place after the most recent decision issued on 17 May 2023.

The landlord’s handling of leaks and associated repairs.

We see there has been a reoccurring issue concerning leaks in several areas of the resident’s home. There is no evidence to explain why so many leaks have occurred. We understand how frustrating this must have been for the resident to experience these leaks. In such circumstances we would expect the landlord is taking steps to resolve the matter within its expected timeframes.
Section 2 of the landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it is responsible for repairs concerning leaks. Therefore when the resident made a report, it was obliged to assess and make any necessary repairs.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. Routine repairs will be attended to within 30 days of a report. In instances where repairs needs special materials or arrangements, it will advise residents of the timescales.
The resident stated the ongoing leaks and repairs to a leaking pipe had not been carried out, which was causing further damage to her property. We have reviewed the landlord’s repair records after our May 2023 determination. We see multiple repair requests had been raised between 9 June 2023 and 10 January 2025. These included:
1. On 9 June 2023 a repair was raised regarding a leak to the radiator in the hallway and leak to boiler in a bathroom cupboard. This was completed on 15 June 2023.
2. On 8 September 2023 a repair was raised regarding a water leak under the kitchen sink. As this was uncontainable the landlord raised this as an emergency repair. We see it was completed the following day.
3. On 16 November 2023 the resident reported a leak in the bathroom. The records show an emergency repair was raised to stop the leak and its contractor attended that same day.
4. On 6 January 2024 a further report was raised concerning a bathroom leak. It says a repair was completed the same day.
5. On 9 January 2024 a repair was raised for an external underground pipe burst. This was raised as a non-routine 7 day repair, however there is no record to say the work was completed. The records do however state there were leaks to the internal water supply from a burst pipe in the bathroom which the landlord attended to that same day. No further reports of leaks were made after this date.
Other than the list above, we have not seen that any further reports of a leak were raised to the landlord prior to its formal response. We are satisfied the landlord attended to the majority of repairs above in line with the timescale set out in its policies. With regard to the external burst pipe, the landlord’s repair records do not confirm that the repair was completed. However we have not seen any further reports indicating that this issue is ongoing. It therefore appears that the matter has likely been resolved and is no longer an active issue.
The evidence does show that during the landlord’s inspection in November 2024, the operative recommended the following works be carried out:
1. Repair leak to flush pipe at back of water closet.
2. Repair leak to trap and waste on basin.
3. Repair leak to stop tap.
4. Repair leak to flexi hose at entry to bottom feed ball valve.
We have reviewed the repair records and can see these works were raised on 14 November 2024, however the records do not show any repairs were completed. In its formal response the landlord had also acknowledged the works were outstanding.
The landlord stated its operatives had attended the resident’s property to carry out repairs but were unsuccessful. The evidence shows the contractor had written to the landlord about being unable to gain access, and the landlord contacted the resident about this. We see the resident disputed this.
It is evident there has been a delay in having the works carried out between December 2024 and February 2025. The landlord is aware of the resident’s requirement to be contacted prior to an appointment and this has been notified to its operatives in the past. On reviewing the correspondence we have not seen evidence to show she was contacted prior to some appointments. In its formal response the landlord also apologised for an appointment not being confirmed with the resident. It is important the landlord or its contractors confirm appointments with residents to avoid miscommunication and subsequent delays. The landlord should also be able to demonstrate this has been done. Therefore we find this was a service failure.
We have not seen any evidence to satisfy us that repairs have since been completed. Overall we find the length of time to address the issues to be unreasonable, considering the works were raised 5 months ago.
The resident said she had lost money for flooring and furniture as a result of the leaks. She was seeking compensation for this. We have reviewed the correspondence and see she had informed the landlord of this.
In circumstances where the resident is claiming damage to personal belongings we would expect the landlord to provide information to the resident of the process to make a claim. The evidence shows during the inspection in November 2024 in response to the resident’s claim for damages, the landlord redirected her to make a compensation claim to its housing team. We see it also wrote to explain this in formal response.
When the resident chased for an update regarding the claim on 19 November the landlord responded on 28 November 2024 confirming that the relevant team was dealing with the claim.
The resident chased on 9 December 2024 for an update. This was addressed in the landlord’s stage two response in January 2025 where it explained despite chasing the relevant team there had been no update regarding the compensation claim. It further chased an update for the resident.
On 10 February 2025, the resident stated the landlord had offered compensation in December 2024, but she had not heard from it since. We have reviewed the files and are unable to see evidence of this. It is unclear if an offer was made at the time and if it was in regard to the claim for damage to belongings. We asked the landlord on 9 May 2025 to confirm if any compensation had been paid, however we have not had a response. We have also attempted to confirm this with the resident but have been unsuccessful.
Based on the evidence we are satisfied the landlord appropriately informed the resident on how to make a claim. We also can see it chased the relevant team for an update and responded to her queries. We have however made a recommendation that the landlord confirms its position on her claim to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports.

During the resident’s complaint she stated there was damp and mould within the home, in particular her children’s bedrooms and the kitchen. We understand she was seeking for the landlord to fully resolve the damp and mould, and also to take off the existing plaster and re-plaster.
Following the resident’s complaint in October 2024, the landlord arranged an inspection on 8 November 2024. This found there was minimal mould spots on the window sealants and trickle vents. The report confirmed there were some high humidity readings. It was recommended that the landlord treat the mould and paint, remove and reseal mouldy sealants, also to fit a positive input ventilator.
The repair records show the landlord had raised specialist work to fit fans and a positive input ventilator on 18 November 2024. A target date was set for work to be completed by 2 January 2025, however this was not completed. The landlord stated its operatives had attended however had no access. The repair records show that a further appointment was raised on 10 March 2025 to fit the fans and positive input ventilator. The target date was for 23 April 2025. The repair records do not confirm if these works have been completed. In the landlord’s submission to us it stated works have been scheduled to begin 25 April 2025. We have not seen evidence to confirm these works have been completed.
All other repairs identified in the inspection were raised on 14 November 2024 with a target date of 30 December 2024. However we have not seen evidence to confirm these have been completed. The landlord has stated its contractor attended on 30 December 2024 but was refused access, we have not seen evidence to confirm this. We can however see that an email was sent from the contractors to the landlord on 21 January 2025 stating that it had attempted to book works in for the second time but was refused access again. Shortly after the landlord wrote to the resident about the access issues and urging her to co-operate. We see the resident disputed this stating no one had visited. We have seen photographic evidence to show contractors had attempted to visit again on 27 February 2025, however the resident was unavailable at the time.
In a recent email from the resident she stated she was still waiting for works to be carried out. Whilst we acknowledge attempts have been made to have the works identified in the inspection carried out, we also see there were periods where the resident was chasing for a repair. We understand the landlord was asked prior to visits for its contractors to contact the resident. Although we recognise this request was forwarded to its contractors, we have not seen evidence to support these requests were taken into account by the contractors. For these reasons we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
We understand the resident was seeking to have her walls replastered because of the damp and mould. However the landlord has not agreed to this. We have reviewed the inspection which was carried out on 14 November 2024. This states there was little moisture in the plaster and it did not recommend the walls needed to be replastered. We have reviewed correspondence and have not seen any evidence to suggest the landlord is required to remove and replaster the walls as per the resident’s request. We also have not seen any evidence to suggest that the condition of the walls requires this extent of work.

Handling of reports about a contractor’s conduct.

The resident had expressed upset over a contractor’s conduct when they visited during an out of hours appointment. She had explained he smelled of alcohol and did not carry out the required works.
The landlord’s code of conduct states its staff should not consume or be under the influence of alcohol whilst at work. In instance where a resident reports the conduct of staff, we would expect the landlord to carry out its own internal investigation into the matter. This would usually be done using a landlord’s staff management policies and the Ombudsman is not able to comment on the outcome of such an investigation, as this falls within the landlord’s role as an employer. We have however considered the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s report when it was made aware of the issue.
The landlord had been made aware of its contractor conduct when it received the resident’s complaint in October 2024. We recognise the event took place in 2023 and the resident complained directly to our service during January 2024. We have seen no evidence to suggest the landlord was aware of this prior to October 2024.
We see on 28 October 2024 the landlord asked the resident for more details about the incident. It also explained it would be reporting this conduct to the relevant manager to speak to the contractor. The evidence shows the landlord further chased for information from the resident on 1 November 2024 to help its internal investigation. The resident provided information on 3 November 2024. We see the landlord raised this to be investigated further on 4 November 2024. In its stage one response dated 11 November 2024, the landlord apologised for the behaviour of its contractor and explained to the resident this was being investigated.
Overall we find the landlord’s handling of the report to be proportionate and what we would expect. The landlord appropriately carried out a timely internal investigation into the resident’s concerns and considered all the relevant information. It explained its actions to the resident which was appropriate. Therefore we have found no maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s reports to the resident’s reports of leaks and associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s reports to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s reports to the resident’s reports about a contractor’s conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

The landlord to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of leaks and associated repairs. This is to reflect the delays. This should be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this investigation. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to this service.
The landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused its handling of damp, and mould. This should be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this investigation. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to this service.
The landlord should contact the resident to confirm a schedule of works for outstanding works and a timeframe. The works should be carried out within 6 weeks of the date of this investigation. Should this take longer, the landlord should clearly explain why to the resident.

Recommendations.

The landlord to provide an update to the resident regarding her claim for damages to belongings.