Birmingham City Council (202423205)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of a first floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder. The resident has been represented by their partner during the complaint process and with this service. The representative will be referred to as the resident for ease of understanding in this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for repairs to the balcony door.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the balcony door.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

Handling of request for repairs

4. The landlord did not respond to the repairs requests raised by the resident within the timescales set out in its policies. The landlord also did not act to establish who was responsible for the repairs in a timely way and provided the resident with contradictory information. However, the landlord has recognised that it failed to deliver its service in line with relevant policies and has made two separate offers of compensation to the resident totalling £570. We consider this level of compensation to be an appropriate remedy to recognise the delays, frustration, and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its policy and procedures. The landlord made the resident a compensation offer of £60 at stage 1 for its  complaint handling failures. We consider this to be reasonable redress.

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.

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.

6. The landlord’s repairs policy refers to the leaseholder’s handbook in relation to repairs on leasehold properties. The leaseholder’s handbook contains a table showing what is the landlord responsibility and what is the leaseholder responsibility. This table shows that the leaseholder is responsible for flat entrance doors and internal doors. However, it also refers to explanatory Note 3. Note 3 says “Where the door is a composite of an external window (i.e. it is an integral part of the window such as balcony doors) the council will repair or replace the frame”.
7. The resident has had an outstanding repair for the balcony door since 11 April 2024. When he raised the repair, the resident was advised that someone would attend within 2 hours as the balcony door was classed as a fire exit. This is the timeframe allocated to emergency repairs within the landlord’s repairs policy and it was therefore not appropriate that no-one attended that day, as arranged.
8. The landlord’s repair records for 12 April 2024 record that the balcony door couldn’t be opened and presented a fire risk. The landlord’s records do not evidence what was agreed with the resident. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident says the contractor told him the repair was not covered under the landlord’s repair service. This was the first occasion the issue of who was responsible for the repair arose and the landlord missed an opportunity to be clear at this early stage in the process.
9. The landlord told the resident in a call on 14 June 2024 that it would raise a job for 17 June 2024. The landlord later accepted that it did not book this job. The resident informed us that several jobs were then raised and either rejected or cancelled by the contractor. Having reviewed the available evidence, including emails between the contractor and the landlord, it appears this was because it was unclear whether the contractor could carry out work on a leasehold property. There is no evidence of the landlord seeking to establish whether it was responsible for the repair at this time and it failed to provide clear direction to the contractor.
10. In its stage 1 response issued to the resident on 24 January 2025, the landlord told the resident that the contractor would contact him to arrange the fitting of a new door.
11. An internal email between landlord staff on 29 January 2025 noted that it is a leaseholder property but that the landlord is responsible for the repair as the door is a fire exit. It acknowledged there has been confusion, but stated the need to ensure the repair/replacement is completed to prevent further escalation.
12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 January 2025 and offered £460 compensation. An internal email details that £300 of this was for the significant delays in actioning the repair and £100 was for the impact this had on the resident. The stage 1 response, internal emails, and the offer of compensation indicate an acceptance among landlord staff that the repair was the landlord’s responsibility and it had failed to carry this out in accordance with its policies.
13. Following further contact from the resident in February 2025, the landlord emailed the contractor. The contractor told the landlord that on 24 January 2025, the Home Ownership Officer had said that the resident was responsible for the balcony door. As a result, the Contract Works Officer refused to approve the work and asked the contractor to close the job. It was a failure that the resident was not informed of this until the landlord issued its stage 2 response in March 2025, in which it informed the resident it was not accepting responsibility for the repairs. By not informing the resident that the job had been cancelled, the resident was caused inconvenience as he believed a contractor would contact him to arrange the fitting of a new door.
14. The landlord has demonstrated several failures in its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to his balcony door. There has been confusion around the issue of who is responsible for the balcony door. The landlord failed to recognise this confusion and take action to provide a clear understanding at the earliest opportunity. This meant it did not manage the resident’s expectations appropriately. By initially accepting responsibility, the landlord created an expectation on the part of the resident. By then rejecting responsibility, the landlord caused the resident distress and frustration.
15. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that it had provided a contradictory response and apologised for the impact of that. It made a further offer of an additional £110 compensation, which it said was in recognition of its failure to deliver a service in line with its standards and policies and the impact this had on the resident.
16. The landlord’s communication with the resident on this issue was poor. It failed to provide clear evidence to the resident as to why it believes it is not responsible for repairing the balcony doors. In its stage 2 response, it told the resident that the balcony door was similar to the front door and therefore the resident’s responsibility. In a response to us, it referenced its repairs policy.
17. From the information in the policy and leaseholders’ handbook we can appreciate why the resident believed it would be the landlord’s responsibility. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the landlord should repair or replace the balcony door, particularly when there is a dispute over who is responsible. The landlord has not provided a sufficiently clear explanation why the position set out in the leaseholders’ handbook, which indicates the landlord may be responsible for repairing or replacing the balcony door, does not apply in this case. This has caused the resident distress and frustration.
18. Regardless of who is responsible, during the period from April 2024 to January 2025 that the landlord believed it was responsible, it failed to meet the timescales set out in its repairs policy. The repair logs show that the door had been identified as a fire risk on 12 April 2024 and the landlord’s failure to resolve the issue within the timescales in the policy resulted in a significant period of time where this door was unable to be used. If it had acted within the timescales set out in this policy, it may have identified that the door needed replacing and the issue of responsibility would have arisen sooner, preventing significant delays and associated frustrations for the resident.
19. The resident said he was told when he reported the repair that someone would attend within 2 hours as it was a fire exit. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident had not provided evidence that the balcony door was a fire escape or a fire door. The lack of clarity regarding this issue has further contributed to the landlord’s poor management of the resident’s expectations around the landlord’s responsibilities related to the balcony door.
20. The replacement of the balcony door, and the question of who is responsible for this work, remains in dispute. This investigation has identified the landlord failed to act within the timescales in its repairs policy, which lead to the landlord taking too long to tell the resident that it was not responsible for the balcony door repairs. It has not provided the resident with an adequate explanation on the issue of responsibility for the work. We have recommended that the landlord take appropriate legal advice to resolve the issue of responsibility in relation to the repair or replacement of the balcony door.
21. However, the landlord has acknowledged that it failed to deliver its services in line with relevant policies. It has made compensation offers totalling £570 in recognition of these failures. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration and we consider this to be reasonable redress for the distress and frustration caused to the resident. When the landlord has acknowledged its own failings and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for those failings we will not make a finding of service failure.

22. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 days and provide a formal response within 10 working days. It aims to provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of receiving the escalated complaint.
23. The resident submitted his stage 1 complaint on 14 May 2024. He received a confirmation email the same day. The confirmation informed him an acknowledgment would be sent within 48 hours once it had been assigned to an investigating officer. There is no evidence to show the landlord sent this acknowledgement. There are no further records available relating to this complaint until 14 June 2024, when the landlord called the resident. During that call the landlord agreed to raise a repair appointment for 17 June 2024. The landlord’s note of the call records “complaint closed by agreement on that basis”.
24. Although the landlord may have felt that they had resolved the complaint, a formal written response should still have been issued to the resident outlining what they had discussed and agreed. This would have prevented any confusion as to the status of the resident’s complaint and what action the resident could expect regarding his complaint. The failure to provide a formal complaint response was made worse as the landlord did not book the agreed appointment. In the absence of a stage 1 response and by not outlining to the resident what his options would be if he remained dissatisfied, this unreasonably delayed matters for the resident.
25. We wrote to the landlord on 20 January 2025 about the resident’s complaint. We asked that it provide a response to the resident within the next 5 days and that it send us a copy.
26. The landlord issued a formal acknowledgment of a stage 1 complaint on 22 January 2025. It provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 24 January 2025. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 31 January 2025 to offer £460 compensation. It offered £60 of this in relation to complaint handling failures.
27. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 February 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 March 2025. The stage 2 response explained that the information in the stage 1 response was not accurate and informed the resident the landlord did not believe it was responsible for the repair or replacement of the balcony door.
28. While the landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for the overall way it had handled the complaint, it did not outline its specific failures and any steps it would take to ensure it does not repeat the same failures again. It also referred the resident to the LGSCO which is not in line with its policy or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
29. It offered the resident a further £110 compensation for not delivering a service in line with its standards and policies. It did not specify exactly what failings it was offering compensation for. In any event the landlord has offered £60 at stage 1 which is considered to be reasonable redress for the failings identified in this investigation and the further offer of £110 is sufficient to resolve the shortcomings identified in the stage 2 response.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The resident told us that he raised several jobs which were cancelled between April 2024 and January 2025. However, the repair records do not show any jobs raised between 12 April and 22 January 2025. Given the difference between what the resident told us and the landlord’s records, we encourage the landlord to ensure that it keeps accurate records of resident contact and jobs raised. Accurate records can help a landlord to identify if there are any issues at an early stage and can be relied upon if a dispute arises.

Communication

31. There were failures in communication about this repair within the landlord. The Home Ownership and Contract Works officers did not communicate the landlord’s position, and the fact that they had asked the contractor to cancel the job, to the team handling the complaint. This information came to that team from the contractor, highlighting the poor internal communication at the landlord. The landlord should ensure that any actions or decisions made in relation to a case where there is an open complaint include the relevant complaints team. This will help to avoid miscommunications or delays in information being provided to residents.
32. In this case, there was also poor communication between the landlord and the resident. Records show that the resident had to contact the landlord on several occasions to ask for responses or updates. The landlord is encourages to communicate promptly and clearly, both internally and with the resident.