Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Birmingham City Council (202404739)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404739

Birmingham City Council

26 August 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the wet room flooring.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The resident has mental health difficulties including previous history of suicidal ideation. He also has physical disabilities. The landlord has a record of these vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord has provided evidence which shows the earliest report of an issue with the wet room flooring was in February 2024. The resident reported that the floor was uneven, and the water was not draining away when he used the shower. The landlord responded by raising a routine repair.
  3. On 11 April 2024, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said:
    1. He had tried booking his bathroom flooring repair on “numerous occasions”, but it remained outstanding.
    2. An operative had attended to retile the bathroom floor but was unable to proceed due to water flowing toward the door instead of the drains. They advised they would direct his repair to the relevant team.
    3. Another operative had attended without an appointment. He was home all day and did not hear a knock, resulting in no access.
    4. An appointment had been made with him over the telephone for 11 April 2024, but no one had turned up. He was informed by the landlord that the appointment had not been booked.
    5. He had been unable to shower for 1 month as if he did, it would cause his hallway to flood.
    6. He was unhappy with how his repair had been dealt with and felt he had been “misinformed and lied to”.
  4. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 3 May 2024. He said he had logged a formal complaint with the landlord at the end of February 2024 but had not received a response. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 3 May 2024 requesting for the resident’s complaint to be logged, acknowledged, and responded to by 27 May 2024.
  5. On 20 May 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It summarised the actions it had taken to date. It upheld the complaint on the basis that it had not provided a “satisfactory level of service”. It said:
    1. It could see that the resident had contacted it “multiple times” for an update following the most recent repair raised on 11 April 2024.
    2. It was unable to confirm how long it would take for it to attend to the repair. However, the job had been escalated as urgent, and the subcontractor would provide an update by 24 May 2024.
    3. There were no contractor notes indicating that appointments were confirmed with the resident prior to attendance. It acknowledged that doing so could have avoided delays and led to an earlier referral to the specialist subcontractor.
    4. It had been unable to locate a scheduled appointment for 11 April 2024 and therefore could not investigate why it was missed.
    5. It would continue to monitor the repair and update the resident. It apologised for the difficulties and inconvenience caused.
  6. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 28 May 2024. He said the repairs had not been arranged as per the outcome of his stage 1 complaint and he was frustrated with the “lack of follow through”. He stated the unresolved issues were impacting his ability to maintain personal hygiene and affecting his mental wellbeing.
  7. The landlord contacted the resident by telephone on 21 June 2024 and made an offer of compensation. Within the evidence provided to us by the landlord, it said the £292 compensation offered was made up of:
    1. £4 for 1 day without bathroom.
    2. £20 for 2 failed appointments.
    3. £60 for impact to the customer of the service failure.
    4. £85 for upset and inconvenience.
    5. £123 for the repair being overdue by 123 days.
  8. On 20 August 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said the specialist subcontractor had attended on 26 July 2024 and completed the repair. It upheld the complaint based on the delay in completing the repair and apologised that the resident had not received the level of service that it expected from its contractors. It also apologised for the upset and inconvenience the delay had caused him.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaint process

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 August 2024 stating the repair for his flooring was incomplete and he was still unable to use the shower. It responded by raising a “recall” job.
  2. On 11 October 2024, the landlord instructed its contractor to close the repair order following a request from an occupational therapist for a level access shower at the property. Repair records show the work was completed on 18 February 2025.
  3. During contact with this Service in August 2025, the resident confirmed repairs to the wet room flooring had been completed when the level access shower was installed. As an outcome, he told us he would like the landlord to acknowledge the impact that the poor handling of the repairs had on him. In addition, he asked the Ombudsman to review the level of compensation he was offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the wet room flooring impacted his mental health. We are not medical specialists, so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident may choose to seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Repairs to the wet room flooring

  1. The landlord’s published tenancy conditions confirm its statutory repair responsibilities under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. They state that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. They also state it will keep in repair the installations in the property for sanitation including basins, sinks, baths, and sanitary conveniences.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it has 3 repair priorities (emergency, urgent and routine). It says it will complete emergency repairs within 2 hours, urgent repairs within 7 working days, and routine repairs within 30 days. This is unless the repair is larger and requires special materials and arrangements, in which case the landlord will give the resident a revised timescale.
  3. Landlords are required to keep a property secure and safe using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Personal hygiene, sanitation and drainage are hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards.
  4. The resident first reported an issue with the wet room flooring affecting his property on 2 February 2024. The landlord attended 13 days later, on 15 February 2024, which was within its 30-day routine repair timescale. However, its repair records indicate that the contractor was unable to gain access to the property and left a card, though no evidence has been provided to confirm this. On 20 February 2024, the repair was cancelled with no apparent further contact with the resident, which was unsatisfactory.
  5. On 1 March 2024, after further contact from the resident, the landlord raised another repair for the bathroom flooring. The landlord attended on 6 March 2024 – within its 30-day routine repair target – but there is no record of what work, if any, was carried out, indicating a record keeping concern. It attended again on 19 March 2024 but was unable to gain access. A photograph confirms a card was left in the resident’s door. On 22 March 2024, the repair was cancelled again after the landlord recorded no contact from the resident following the card being left.
  6. There is no evidence in the landlord’s records to suggest the resident was aware of the appointments on 15 February and 19 March 2024. Given this, it was unreasonable for the landlord to cancel the repairs. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated the cancellations were in line with its “no access process”. However, this process is not detailed in its repairs policy, and upon request, the landlord has confirmed a policy for no access has been drafted and is awaiting approval, but there is no current policy in place. We find the landlord should have been more proactive by attempting to contact the resident or re-booking the repairs, rather than taking no action and relying on the resident to make further contact. Such steps could have prevented unnecessary inconvenience to the resident and allowed the repairs to progress sooner. The landlord appropriately acknowledged these failings in its stage 1 response.
  7. Following further contact from the resident, the landlord raised a third repair on 11 April 2024 – almost 10 weeks after the initial report. At this point, the resident also expressed dissatisfaction and a complaint was logged. Repair records show the landlord contacted its contractors and arranged an appointment for the next day, which was appropriate given the resident had reported being unable to shower for a month due to the flooring issue. Access was gained on 12 April 2024, but due to the lack of clear records, we are unable to establish the outcome of this appointment, which is a cause for concern.
  8. Between 15 April and 24 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord on 7 occasions seeking updates on his repair, with his tone becoming increasingly urgent over time. The evidence suggests this escalation was due to the landlord’s failure to provide a clear plan of action following the repair appointment on 12 April 2024. This omission was unreasonable given the complaint already raised, and it caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and time and effort in attempting to resolve the matter.
  9. The landlord did not respond to the resident until 24 April 2024, at which point it booked a further appointment for 30 April 2024. It attended on 30 April and 1 May 2024, when it noted that while the shower itself was working as normal, there were “problems with the Altro floor covering and the flow angles of the water … to the drain”. Repair records indicate that the resident was advised to contact his Housing Officer, and that the matter would be referred to a supervisor for a site visit. However, there is no evidence of when, or if, such a follow-up site visit occurred. The absence of this information raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and follow-through.
  10. At this stage in the timeline, there is also no evidence that the landlord took appropriate action in response to potential hazards posed by the defective flooring. Under HHSRS, the landlord is required to assess potential hazards and take steps to avoid or minimise them. There is no indication that it considered whether temporary repairs could be undertaken or, if this was not possible, how the resident’s inability to shower could be mitigated. Given the landlord was aware the resident had reported being unable to shower, we find it should have acted with greater urgency. It would have been appropriate for it to consider a temporary decant or making arrangements for the resident to use alternative nearby showering facilities.
  11. In its stage 1 response on 20 May 2024, the landlord stated that the repair had been passed to a subcontractor, marked as urgent, and that it expected the resident to receive an update by 24 May 2024. However, despite the landlord’s assurance that the works would be prioritised, the resident continued to experience delays, prompting him to escalate his complaint. These delays caused the resident further avoidable distress and inconvenience.
  12. It is acknowledged that following the resident’s escalation request, the landlord made proactive attempts to chase its contractor between 6 June and 8 July 2024. However, it was unable to provide the resident with a detailed update as the repair had been referred to a subcontractor. While the landlord’s efforts to pursue progress are noted, the lack of clear communication and failure to manage the contractor-subcontractor relationship effectively meant the resident was left without clarity or certainty regarding his repair, which was unreasonable. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that its contractor should have “done more” to monitor the repair status with its subcontractor. However, ultimately, the landlord remained accountable for any failings, as both the contractor and subcontractor were acting as its agents.
  13. In its stage 2 response of 20 August 2024, the landlord stated that the subcontractor had attended on 26 July 2024 and concluded the repair had been completed. However, due a lack of clear records, it is not possible to confirm what work was carried out on that date. The job order simply notes “job attended and completed”, yet the resident’s further contact on 23 August 2024 indicates this was not the case. This discrepancy is concerning and demonstrates poor information sharing between the landlord and its contractors. This led to the incorrect conclusion that no further repairs were required, even though the repair remained outstanding. If the landlord had spoken to the resident or completed a post inspection of the wet room flooring prior to issuing its stage 2 response, it would have been aware that the floor was still defective. This would have avoided additional distress and inconvenience to the resident and allowed it to resolve the repair issues at an earlier stage.
  14. On 23 August 2024, the landlord raised a “recall” job for the flooring repair, noting an inspection had been completed, but no work had been carried out. Despite the resident reiterating that he was unable to use the shower, the contractor did not attend until 16 September 2024 – 24 days later. The outcome of this visit is unclear due to further record keeping issues, but repair notes on 24 September and 9 October 2024 indicate the wet room flooring needed to be taken up and reformed, requiring a decant. It took the landlord 8 months and multiple contractor visits to identify the necessary remedial works. This was an unreasonable length of time in the circumstances and resulted in the resident receiving multiple visits for the same issue. This added to his uncertainty, as well as causing him inconvenience, time and effort to try to get the issues resolved.
  15. On 11 October 2024, the landlord closed the existing repair order following an occupational therapist’s request for a level access shower at the property, noting that works would start in approximately 4 to 6 weeks. The planned works by the aids and adaptations team included installing a new toilet, sink, and level access shower, and fixing existing drainage issues. While cancelling the previous repairs was appropriate due to the scheduled planned works, the landlord should have reconsidered the resident’s situation at this stage, as he remained unable to use the shower due to the flooring condition and the expected delay. It apparently did not explore temporary repairs, alternative shower arrangements, or a decant, leaving the resident without adequate sanitary provision. This was unsatisfactory.
  16. The resident said that he had severe mental health difficulties, for which he had a support worker and was also under the care of his doctor. The landlord was already aware of this prior to the start of his tenancy, but it was first recorded in connection with the repairs on 22 April 2024. The landlord’s repair records also show that on 1 May 2024, it escalated the repair due to “suicide threats”, although it is unclear how it became aware of this, indicating shortcomings in its record keeping.
  17. Other than the escalation, which was reasonable in the circumstances, there is no evidence of the further steps the landlord took in response to the resident’s references to having suicidal thoughts. There is nothing to suggest it opened a safeguarding case or made appropriate referrals for support. The resident stated that the police and ambulance service attended his property due to the suicidal thoughts and that they, not the landlord, referred him to adult social care. In his escalation request on 28 May 2024, he explained that being unable to shower had worsened his mental health, but the landlord did not address this. We find the landlord should have acted with greater urgency. It should have identified the resident as vulnerable and prioritised his case accordingly. The delay in progressing the repair was unreasonable given his circumstances.
  18. The lack of effective communication from the landlord to the resident contributed to its failings. Throughout the timeline of our investigation, it was largely left to the resident to initiate contact and seek updates from the landlord. Considering his vulnerabilities and history of suicidal ideation, we would have expected to see the landlord checking in with the resident at regular intervals and providing regular updates. If it had done this, it may have avoided additional uncertainty, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
  19. The landlord’s records confirm that the installation of a new level access shower was completed on 18 February 2025. It took approximately 12 months from when the issue was first reported to resolve the flooring problem, during which time the resident was unable to shower. It is acknowledged that some of the delay was due to the aids and adaptations process, which would have been largely outside of the landlord’s control. Nevertheless, we consider that failings in the landlord’s actions prior to the occupational therapist’s request for a level access shower unreasonably contributed to the delay in resolving the matter.
  20. Overall, there were multiple serious failings that had a significant detrimental impact on the resident. There were unreasonable and unexplained delays resulting in repairs taking 12 months to complete, during which time no temporary arrangements were put in place to enable the resident to shower. In its response to the resident’s reports, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered its obligations under HHSRS. It also showed a lack of ownership of the resident’s case and did not maintain adequate oversight of repairs carried out by third parties. It held information about the resident’s vulnerabilities, including previous suicidal ideation, but did not make appropriate use of this information in its decision making, leading to avoidable distress and inconvenience. Poor communication and record keeping further contributed to the delays that the resident experienced. Considering the above, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the wet room flooring.
  21. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will consider discretionary compensation “to recognise inconvenience caused by a service failure”. It does not provide any specific details of the awards it will make but states it will assess each case “on its own merit”, generally not exceeding payments of £250 for inconvenience. It also states that it will consider a payment for loss of rooms and facilities in the property, which will be based on the net rent and the number of rooms in the property that could not be used.
  22. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, awards over £1,000 would be considered appropriate where there have been serious failings by the landlord which have caused a long-term impact. While the landlord tried to put things right in terms of financial redress, we find its compensation offer was insufficient and did not reflect the severity of the detriment to the resident. The landlord also failed to adequately assess the impact of its actions on him, by not considering a reduction in rent for the bathroom, which he had advised he had been unable to make full use of. This was not in line with the requirements of its compensation policy, which was unreasonable.
  23. The Ombudsman has considered whether compensation based on rent is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The resident was unable to make full use of his bathroom and showering facilities due to the issue with the flooring. The Ombudsman considers that a 20% rent reduction is appropriate over a period of 45 weeks. The number of weeks has been calculated from 11 April 2024 (when the resident told the landlord he was unable to shower) to 18 February 2025 (when the works to the bathroom were completed). During this period, the resident was charged rent of £113.19 per week. Based on 20% of the rent, the total compensation based on rent is calculated at £1,025. This is an approximate calculation.
  24. As outlined in the breakdown in paragraph 9, the landlord offered £145 compensation to the resident in recognition of the impact, upset, and inconvenience he experienced. However, we find this amount does not adequately reflect the impact of the failings identified in this investigation. Therefore, the landlord must pay the resident an additional £105. This brings the total compensation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident for distress and inconvenience to £250, aligning with the guidance set out in its compensation policy.
  25. The Ombudsman has investigated other complaints and issued a special report about the landlord in January 2023. Several orders and recommendations were made as part of this report, including improvements to its handling of repairs and complaints. While the landlord has engaged with the Ombudsman and progress has been made, similar failings have been identified in this case. The landlord should consider the findings highlighted in this report against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s special report of January 2023. A relevant order has been made in respect of this.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be responded to within 20 working days of the escalation request.
  2. Upon escalating his complaint to this Service, the resident said he had logged a formal complaint with the landlord at the end of February 2024. The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s claims. However, our findings must be based on documentary evidence. We have not seen record of a previous complaint, which would make it difficult for us to assess this aspect of the case. Our investigation will therefore focus on the events following the resident’s complaint made on 11 April 2024.
  3. The landlord took 21 working days to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint, responding on 13 May 2024. This delay prompted the resident to chase the matter on 29 April 2024 and contact this Service on 3 May 2024, after which we had to prompt the landlord to respond. At stage 2, the landlord took 60 working days to respond after the escalation request, prompting further contact from the resident to us on 26 June and 5 August 2024. Both delays significantly exceeded the landlord’s policy timescales, causing avoidable distress, uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident.
  4. The stage 2 complaint was the landlord’s final opportunity to review both the substantive issue and its complaint handling. However, it failed to conduct a thorough investigation, wrongly concluding the repair was complete without contractor confirmation or checking with the resident. As a result, the landlord missed the opportunity to remedy the substantive issue and rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship. It consequently failed to use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
  5. The landlord also failed to offer adequate redress, despite acknowledging the resident’s complaints were “justified”. At stage 1, it offered an apology and said it would monitor the repair, which were positive steps, but we consider it did not go far enough. The landlord should have considered awarding compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience it had caused. At stage 2, although it offered £292 to the resident during the investigation, it did not include this offer in its final response, which was unsatisfactory. This showed inconsistency and a failure to follow through on its actions. Additionally, it did not offer any redress for its complaint handling failures, despite acknowledging delays, which was neither fair nor reasonable.
  6. Considering the circumstances of the case, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide any specific details of the awards it will make in the event of a failure in complaint handling. This Service considers a payment of £200 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the wet room flooring.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This should be written by a member of its executive team.
    2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,475, which comprises:
      1. £1,025 for his loss of the full use of his bathroom, as set out in the calculation in paragraph 37.
      2. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of repairs to the wet room flooring.
      3. £200 for the complaint handling failures identified.
      4. This should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
      5. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £292, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
  2. The Ombudsman orders that, within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must conduct a review of its handling of matters in this case to improve its future service delivery. The findings highlighted in this investigation should be considered against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s special report of January 2023. A report detailing the outcome of the review should be sent to this Service, and should identify:
    1. What went wrong and what it has learned from the resident’s experience.
    2. What actions it has taken or plans to take to manage repairs effectively through to completion.
    3. Any staff training needs and/or changes to its procedures required to ensure vulnerable residents are identified and repairs prioritised accordingly.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman has identified poor communication between the landlord and its contractors. The landlord should review its relationship with its contractors to make sure communication is efficient and residents are not impacted. When delays are unavoidable, the landlord should make sure it updates the affected resident/s.