We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Birmingham City Council (202346417)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346417

Birmingham City Council

4 September 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports about the condition of an outbuilding.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy. This was previously an agricultural tenancy which became a secure tenancy in 2006. The property is a 3 bedroomed house with outbuildings and approximately 2 acres of land.
  2. On 11 November 2022 the landlord raised a job to repair the roof of an outbuilding. It said the building required a repair to the roof as it was bowing. It also noted the roof required a snow guard, which it installed on 12 November 2022. The landlord was due to begin works to the roof in June 2023 however upon inspection it found nesting swallows which indefinitely paused the works. The landlord attended on 17 November 2023 as the resident had reported the roof had collapsed. It placed fencing around the outbuilding and obtained a quote for asbestos removal.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 December 2023 to raise a formal complaint. She felt its lack of action had left her in an unsafe situation. She said this had resulted in her being unable to use the stables inside the outbuilding, as well as causing her emotional distress. The landlord attended to make safe the electrics to the barn on 15 December 2023. The resident also raised a compensation claim with the landlord’s insurer on 29 December 2023 for items damaged by the collapsed roof, as well as costs incurred as a result.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 January 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays completing the repair. It said these had been due to the non-standard nature of the repairs. It also said it was due to begin works to remove asbestos and carry out other repairs in February 2024.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 26 January 2024. She was unhappy the landlord’s response had factual errors in it, and she felt the remaining fencing did not provide protection if the rest of the outbuilding structure collapsed. She wanted the landlord to provide her with the exact date that repair work would start.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 March 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint but offered no further compensation. The landlord said it had inspected the site on 23 January 2024 and found the building needed a structural review in its entirety. It said it was in the process of compiling quotes for this and would update her when it had further news.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 15 March 2024. She was unhappy that she had lost the use of the outbuilding. This had caused her to have to keep animals in a remote field and order additional shelter for her horses. She said she was afraid of the roof and brickwork further collapsing and disturbing asbestos. She said the situation was affecting her physical and mental health. To resolve her complaint, she wanted compensation for being financially disadvantaged. In a call with the Ombudsman in August 2025 the resident said the landlord had now demolished the outbuilding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said the effects of this situation has had a negative effect on her health. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to decide whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers the landlord’s actions or failings affected her health. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, this investigation has considered any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident said she reported issues about the roof as far back as 2019 and 2021. There was a break for a year between November 2021 and November 2022 where there were no reports made in relation to the roof repair. The Ombudsman expects that residents bring any complaints to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable timeframe. Given this break in reports, we have limited this investigation to the resident’s reports from November 2022 going through to the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process.
  3. The landlord has, since the conclusion of the complaints process, demolished the outbuilding. As the landlord reached this decision significantly after the conclusion of the complaints process the Ombudsman has not considered this as part of this investigation. We can only make decisions on matters which have first been through the landlord’s complaints process, and where it has had the chance to put things right through its process. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s actions since the completion of the complaints process, she can raise a new complaint with the landlord if she wishes.
  4. The resident has told the Ombudsman that due to the collapse of the outbuilding roof the stables at her property were damaged. She also said this resulted in associated costs such as having to buy new stables. We do not award damages in the same way that a court does, and consideration of the landlord’s liability for damages or reimbursement for specific items and costs would be more appropriate for its insurer or legal proceedings. The Ombudsman has seen evidence the landlord has submitted a claim for these costs to its insurer. If the resident is unhappy with the actions of the landlord’s insurer she may wish to seek advice from the Financial Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of an outbuilding

  1. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement signed by the resident at the start of her tenancy. The resident mentioned in an e-mail to the landlord on 2 December 2023 that her tenancy agreement covers the repairs of the outbuildings on her property. She specifically mentioned Volume 2 Clause 1.1 of the agreement. However, the resident has told the Ombudsman she does not have a copy of this. Without supporting evidence, we are unable to use the resident’s testimony as proof that the repair of the outbuildings was the landlord’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement.
  2. Under a secure tenancy the landlord would be responsible for keeping the ‘structure’ and ‘exterior’ of the dwelling-house in repair. This obligation is found in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However as set out in Irving’s Estate v Moran, the structure and exterior of the building mean the essential part of the building for dwelling, not the ‘entire building’. In this instance the outbuilding did not form part an essential part of the structure or exterior of the ‘dwelling-house’. Given this, the landlord would not have a statutory obligation to repair this outbuilding once the tenancy became secure.
  3. The secure tenancy conditions on the landlord’s website do say however that it will ‘keep in repair any garage, shed, porch or outbuilding’ it has provided ‘so long as it economic to do so’. The landlord also says it reserves the right to remove these structures when, in its view, they are ‘beyond economic repair’. The landlord’s repair policy reiterates this responsibility saying that outbuildings ‘will be maintained to the end of their natural life as long as it is economic to do so’. It also says it will remove, rather than replace, any outbuildings which are ‘beyond economic repair’ or in ‘dangerous condition’.
  4. Whilst the landlord did not have a statutory obligation to complete repairs to the outbuilding, it should have maintained the outbuilding until it was no longer economical to do so, as per its policies. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have clearly communicated its intentions and what it deemed to be economical. This would have been in line with its communication with the resident where it repeatedly said it would undertake repairs to the outbuilding.
  5. The landlord’s repair policy has several timescales for dealing with repairs. It says it will attempt to complete emergency within 2 hours of a resident reporting these. For urgent repairs it will attend in either 1, 3 or 7 days depending on the severity of the repair. For routine repairs it says it will attempt to complete these within 30 days of a resident making a report. It also says there are larger repairs, which may need special materials and arrangements. For these, it says it will inform residents of the estimated timescales.
  6. Given the nature of the repairs to the outbuilding, we consider this work would have fallen under the category of larger repairs which did not have a prescribed timescale for completion. The Ombudsman would nevertheless expect the landlord to clearly communicate with the resident about timescales for the completion of works and for it to complete these without unreasonable delays.
  7. The landlord’s evidence shows it took no action between 11 November 2022, when it logged a repair to replace the outbuilding roof, and June 2023. It is unclear why there was such a long period of time between the landlord logging the repair and taking its next steps. Its records do not refer to any inspections, surveys, appointments, or communication with the resident between these dates. The landlord’s lack of progress throughout this period represented a failure in service and signified an unreasonable delay in progressing the repair.
  8. Following its inspection in June 2023, the landlord discovered swallows in the barn. It said wildlife experts advised it needed to immediately halt any works until the swallows had migrated. This was in line with its statutory obligations. The landlord has said it was informed it could resume work in November 2023, although it has not provided a copy of this correspondence. Given the landlord’s statutory obligations, the Ombudsman cannot hold it at fault for the delays in progressing works between June 2023 and November 2023.
  9. The resident has said she reported that the roof of her outbuilding had collapsed on 14 November 2023. The landlord’s records do not have evidence of the original report or the date the resident made her report. Its records do demonstrate that it attended on 17 November 2023 to make safe the building following this. It arranged for fencing around the outbuilding as well as obtaining a quote for asbestos removal.
  10. The timescales indicate the landlord dealt with this as an urgent repair, rather than an emergency repair. Considering the report related to an outbuilding rather than the actual residence, the landlord’s decision to treat this as an urgent rather than an emergency repair appears to have been reasonable.
  11. The landlord also attended to make safe the electrics in the outbuilding, which it raised a job for on 12 December 2023 and completed on 15 December 2023. The evidence does not demonstrate why the landlord raised a job on this date. Given the available evidence, it appears the landlord should have raised this job when initially making safe the roof collapse. There is no evidence to show it considered this job at an earlier stage which suggests there was a failure to fully make safe the outbuilding following the roof collapse. This was a failing.
  12. After making safe the outbuilding, the only action the landlord took until its stage 2 complaint response was a further inspection on 23 January 2024. This noted it needed to perform a full structural review of the outbuilding, not just the roof. Although it had previously obtained a quote for asbestos removal there is no evidence it actually performed this work. By the time the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response it had failed to take any further action towards this or provide the resident with an outline of how it intended to proceed.
  13. Whilst the Ombudsman notes this may have been an unusual and complex repair which required additional time to consider, the landlord failed to provide evidence of any steps it took to progress the issue following its inspection. This again represented a failing from the landlord.
  14. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it was in the process of compiling quotes and following this it would instruct for pre-construction works and structural surveys. This was 4 months after the outbuilding roof had collapsed, and around 16 months after it logged issues with the roof. Whilst we note certain delays were outside the landlord’s control, the overall length of time for it to take significant steps to resolve the situation was unreasonable.
  15. The landlord has now demolished the outbuilding. As stated above as this took place after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response this investigation has not investigated the landlord’s actions in removing the outbuilding.
  16. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of an outbuilding represents maladministration. The landlord failed to act or decide on its course of action in a reasonable timeframe. The Ombudsman has not seen sufficient evidence it communicated openly with the resident about the condition of the roof, or that it took necessary steps to investigate her reports.
  17. The landlord recognised its failings in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response. In both instances it upheld her complaint and provided her with £50 compensation in its stage 1 response. Given the length of time the resident continued to report her concerns about the outbuilding the landlord’s delays this was not a sufficient offer of redress.
  18. For the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings the landlord should pay the resident £400 compensation. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there is ‘a failure which adversely affected the resident’. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £50 made in its stage 1 complaint response.
  19. The resident submitted a claim for compensation to the resident’s insurer, which is appropriate given the circumstances. The landlord’s insurer informed the resident that it had a backlog of claims and was unable to provide an exact date when it would deal with her claim. In the spirit of putting things right the landlord should consider writing to the insurer to request an update on this claim and provide the resident with this update when it has received this.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy has 2 stages. At stage 1 of the complaints process the landlord says it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of receipt. Following this, it aims to provide a stage 1 complaint response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it says it will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of a resident escalating their complaint.
  2. The resident submitted her complaint to the landlord on 2 December 2023. She had attempted to raise a complaint at an earlier date but had sent her e-mail to the incorrect address, causing it to bounce back. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 6 December 2023. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 January 2024. This was 32 working days later, outside of the timescale specified in its complaints policy.
  3. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated about any delays at stage 1, causing the resident to chase it for updates on 29 December 2023 and 15 January 2024. The landlord’s failure to provide its response in its policies timescales, along with its failure to communicate about any delays represented a failure in service by the landlord.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 27 January 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response 32 working days later on 11 March 2024. The landlord again failed to communicate regarding its escalation of the complaint or any delays in its process. This again led to the resident to chase it for updates on 12 and 19 February 2024. The landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 2 again represented a failing.
  5. The landlord’s handling of the associate complaint therefore represented maladministration. It failed to provide responses within the timescales specified in its complaints process at both stage 1 and stage 2 of its process and it did not acknowledge the delays within its responses. The fact both stage 1 and 2 responses were issued outside of target indicates the landlord did not learn from the case. It did not keep the resident updated about any potential delays which caused her additional distress and inconvenience.
  6. For this failing, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures of compensation in this range when there has been a failing from the landlord which adversely affected the resident, albeit with no permanent impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of an outbuilding.
    2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £500 consisting of £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the resident’s reports about the condition of an outbuilding, and £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the associated complaint.
    2. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    3. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has completed the above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider writing to its insurer to seek an update on the resident’s outstanding claim for compensation.