From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Birmingham City Council (202420180)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420180

Birmingham City Council

30 July 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:
    1. handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the bathroom.
    2. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom flat. He lives there with his family, including his son who has down syndrome, autism, and learning difficulties. His son needs support with basic tasks, such as using the bathroom. A representative supported the resident during the landlord’s complaint process. We have referred to both as “the resident” in this report.
  2. On 17 November 2022 the resident reported that the toilet was loose and coming away from the floor. The landlord repaired the toilet in November and December 2022. However, between September and November 2023 the resident reported the same issue again, and the landlord carried out further repairs.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 4 January 2024. He said the toilet was still coming loose and had not been properly inspected. He was worried it posed a health and safety risk, especially to his son. He said the loose toilet had caused the clean water hose to come off and flood the floor several times. This caused damage to the bathroom floor and made the wall behind the toilet damp. The resident explained his son’s needs and how the situation affected him. He also raised concerns about a large chip in the bathroom sink, which he believed was unsafe. And he felt the property was unfit to live in. He asked the landlord to replace the sink, secure the toilet and repair the flooring.
  4. On 6 April 2024 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1. It apologised for the delay and said it had tried to contact the resident to confirm when the property had been assessed and for any further information that might help with its investigations.
  5. On 12 June 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. He was unhappy with both the content and delay of the stage 1 response. He said the previous repairs to the toilet were poor and that the sink and bathroom were still not repaired. He repeated his concern that these problems were a safety risk to his family.
  6. On 25 July 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It said the complaint was ‘not justified’. The landlord provided a repair timeline from November 2022, noting it had renewed the toilet pan on 24 June 2024 and replaced the sink on 24 July 2024. It said its contractor had attended to all appointments within the expected timeframes. It added that an inspection on 4 July 2024 identified broken floor tiles, and when the landlord returned on 19 July 2024, it could not again access and cancelled the work.
  7. In the resident’s January 2024 referral to us, he said the bathroom floor and wall were still damaged. He said the landlord advised it needed to carry out an asbestos check before completing the work. He also said the landlord failed to meet deadlines and did not fully understand his complaint. He wanted the bathroom wall and floor repaired.
  8. On 13 February 2025 the landlord reviewed the complaint and said it paid the resident £180 in compensation. This was made up of £90 for delays in stage 1 and 2 responses, £60 for poor complaint handling and a lack of information in its stage 1 response and £30 for missed appointments. The landlord completed the outstanding repairs between February and April 2025.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports of disrepair to the bathroom

  1. The resident reported the issue of the loose toilet in November 2022 and again on several occasions between September and November 2023. While the landlord did attend on each occasion within a reasonable timescale, the repeated reports would suggest that repairs were not lasting or that there was an underlying cause.
  2. The landlord’s repair records showed that it knew about the household’s vulnerabilities as early as July 2023. Yet there was no evidence that the landlord had considered this when deciding how to respond to this repeated problem.
  3. Under the Equality Act, landlords must consider any reasonable adjustments. In this case, the landlord should have considered a long-term solution, such a replacing the toilet, checking the floor structure or taking extra measures to ensure the bathroom was safe to use. There is no evidence it did so or that it assessed the risk to the household. A risk assessment would have helped the landlord to identify the root cause and take appropriate action.
  4. The resident reported this issue again in his 5 January 2024 formal complaint. He also reported a large chip at the front of the bathroom sink. In addition, he clearly explained his son’s vulnerabilities and the risks posed by the bathroom’s condition. A supporting organisation echoed these concerns in writing to the landlord. Yet, the landlord took no action until April 2024, around 3 months later. This was unacceptable. And caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who felt the landlord was not taking the situation seriously.
  5. In April 2024 the landlord tried to call the resident on 2 occasions. However, it failed to raise a repair order or inspect the property. We have seen photographs that were provided to the landlord at the time, which showed a significant chip in the sink, with sharp edges. The landlord’s failure to take a proactive approach left the household with an unsafe bathroom longer than necessary. These are serious failings.
  6. The landlord did not raise a repair order for the loose toilet until 22 May 2024, which was repaired on 24 June 2024. This was a delay of more than 5 months after the resident’s January 2024 complaint. And far beyond its repair policy timescales.
  7. In June 2024 the resident clarified that when the toilet came loose, it pulled the clean water pipe off, causing floods which damaged the flooring and wall. He added that the wall was rotting and crumbling, and his son, due to his condition, would try to eat the plaster. He also chased the repair to the bathroom sink.
  8. The landlord raised a repair for the sink on 12 June 2024, which was repaired on 24 July 2024. This was another considerable delay. The landlord should have raised this repair when the resident first reported this in January 2024. The delay appears partly due to the landlord’s reluctance to communicate directly with the resident’s representative. This was despite the landlord knowing of their authority to act on his behalf. Instead, the landlord put the onus on the resident to contact it directly, which was inappropriate and delayed getting matters resolved.
  9. Despite knowing that the damaged flooring was a probable cause of the loose toilet, the landlord failed to inspect the bathroom until July 2024. This showed a poor understanding of the seriousness of the situation and the risk to the household, especially the resident’s child.
  10. During the July 2024 inspection, the landlord found broken bathroom floor tiles and a ‘small amount’ of damaged wall plaster. It subsequently raised repair orders for both. While this was the right approach, it should have happened much earlier. And this was another missed opportunity to carry out a risk assessment.
  11. The landlord attended on 19 July 2024 to repair the damaged skirting board in the bathroom. However, it cancelled the work due to no access and no contact from the resident. The landlord’s final response said the resident would need to contact it to raise a new work order. However, it is unclear whether this visit was pre-arranged or if the resident was contacted prior to the appointment. The repair order also did not appear to address the floor repairs directly.
  12. In any case, on 24 July 2024 the landlord’s repair records showed that it would need to assess whether there was any asbestos in the bathroom before completing any works to the flooring or walls. This should have been considered and scheduled far earlier.
  13. The resident continued to pursue repairs after the landlord’s July 2024 final response. He faced delays in receiving updates following the asbestos check and there were delays in the landlord raising the relevant repair orders. We recognise that between September 2024 and February 2025 there were a number of failed appointments because the floor was too wet to carry out work, which the landlord attributed to the resident’s cleaning of the bathroom.
  14. However, there were also other failed appointments due to failures in communication. The landlord sent incorrect text messages and failed to ensure its contractors phoned the resident upon arrival. And one December 2024 appointment was mistakenly cancelled. These failures contributed to repeated delays.
  15. The landlord’s overall handling of reports of disrepair to the bathroom was extremely poor. There were considerable delays in repairs, with it only completing the flooring work as late as April 2025. Although the landlord acknowledged missed appointments in its February 2025 review, it did not address the broader or more serious failings identified in this report.
  16. The landlord did not carry out a risk assessment and repeatedly failed to consider the household’s needs. It delayed raising repair orders and missed multiple chances to take meaningful action. These ongoing failures left the household, which contained a vulnerable child, without a fully usable or safe bathroom for a prolonged period. And the resident was worried about possible injuries to his child. This situation caused considerable disruption and significant distress to the household.
  17. These were serious failings that accumulated over a long period of time and had a seriously detrimental impact on the household. This amounts to severe maladministration, and we have awarded £1,200 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident first raised a complaint on 5 January 2024. The landlord responded on 6 April 2024, more than 3 months later. This was contrary to its policy timescales, which say it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 15 working days. The landlord failed to follow its own policy and did not apologise for the delay.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response was brief, lacked quality and showed no empathy. Additionally, it failed to confirm the complaint stage, define the complaint, give a clear decision or explain how to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It also failed to address all the points the resident raised. As such, its response did not comply with our Complaint Handling Code. This caused frustration for the resident who felt the landlord had not fully understood the complaint.
  3. After the resident escalated the complaint on 12 June 2024, the landlord did not issue its stage 2 final response until 25 July 2024, 32 working days later. This was 12 working days beyond its 20-working-day timescale. Although this was a minor delay, the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for it, showing a lack of learning. The response also used dismissive and accusatory language, saying the complaint was ‘not justified’, despite clear evidence of multiple failings. This caused further frustration for the resident who felt the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously.
  4. In February 2025 the landlord reviewed the complaint and offered £150 compensation for delays at stages 1 and 2, poor complaint handling and lack of information. We expect the landlord to carry out a full investigation and review all the circumstances of the case at stage 2. When compensation is offered after the complaint process is exhausted, it becomes harder for the landlord to show it will act fairly and consistently in all cases. Had the landlord made this offer during the complaints process, it would likely have been satisfactory in putting its complaint handling errors right.
  5. However, because it did not, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have therefore ordered it to pay the £150 as offered in its complaint review if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of disrepair to the bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,380, comprised of:
    1. £30 for the failed appointments as offered in its February 2025 review of the complaint if it has not done so already.
    2. A further £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of reports of disrepair to the bathroom.
    3. £150 for the adverse effect caused by its complaint handling as offered in its February 2025 review of the complaint if it has not done so already.
  2. Within the next 6 weeks, the landlord must review the failings identified in this report and confirm in writing to the resident and this Service what steps the landlord has taken/or will take to prevent similar issues in the future. As part of this it must review the way it processes and acts upon its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010, with particular attention to making reasonable adjustments.
  3. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.