Birmingham City Council (202453351)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202453351

Birmingham City Council

7 October 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 response to the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident has mobility issues and suffers from PTSD.
On 13 January 2025, the resident reported that his toilet was blocked. This was reported as an emergency repair because he did not have access to other toilet facilities.
On the same date, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He was unhappy that it had not repaired the blocked toilet within its 2-hour timeframe. As a resolution, he wanted the repair completed.
On 5 February 2025, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. The landlord found that it failed to respond to the emergency repair within 2 hours. It attended on 14 January 2025 at 9am but was unable to gain access to the rear garden because the resident did not have his rear door keys. It re-attended on 15 January 2025, gained access to the rear of the property, and cleared the drain blockage. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused.
On 6 February 2024, the resident escalated his complaint with the landlord. The resident was unhappy with discrepancies with the landlord’s timeline of the repairs and requested full disclosure on the repair including what calls were made and emails sent. He did not feel that the landlord considered the severity of the situation. He said that this caused him considerable inconvenience and was not offered a temporary toilet until the next day.
On 6 March 2025, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord upheld the complaint. It provided the resident with a timeline of the events provided by its contractor. It found that it had not attended to the repair within its timeframes for an emergency repair. It highlighted this issue with its contractor to ensure the same issue does not reoccur. It apologised for this service failing.
When the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman, he remained unhappy. He said that the landlord had not considered his mobility issues and his PTSD. He said that his mental health deteriorated since the incident. He was frustrated that the landlord did not offer a temporary toilet until the next day. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted compensation and an apology.

Events after the internal complaints procedure

On 5 June 2025, the landlord reviewed the case and its complaint handling. It apologised that compensation had not been considered as part of its complaint response and offered £600 compromising:
1. £100 for a delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response.
2. £100 because the stage 1 complaint response was factually incorrect.
3. £150 for the delay in responding to the repair.
4. £250 for the personal impact to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident reported that his mental health declined because of the incident. We are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. We can consider general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet

It is not disputed that there were failings in its response to the emergency repair. In its complaints response the landlord accepted service failings. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. When reviewing this we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
When investigating the complaint, internal emails of the landlord and the contractor show confusion around the understanding of the repair records. When the contractor passed the repair to a sub-contractor on 13 January 2025, the original repair order was marked as complete, then the follow-on work order was not completed until 15 January 2025. The evidence also indicates that the resident disputed an attendance by the sub-contractor on 14 January 2025.
The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors. The landlord’s repair record keeping was inappropriate.
In its complaint response the landlord said that it provided feedback to its contractor so that the same issue would not reoccur. While this was an appropriate action to take, it would also be reasonable for the landlord to have oversight of this type of emergency repair to ensure that it meets its repair responsibilities. It is not clear that the landlord gave the resident assurance that the same issue would not reoccur.
The resident expressed frustration that the landlord only offered the resident a temporary toilet the next day. The landlord should have measures in place to track emergency repairs of this nature. The resident was vulnerable and did not have access to toilet facilities. Had the landlord tracked the repair and found that it was not going to meet its timeframe, it could have offered the resident a temporary toilet on the same day and mitigated the issue for the resident. This failing caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet. This is because it failed to respond to the repair within its timeframes and demonstrated a lack of regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities. While it provided feedback to its repairs contractors, it has not demonstrated how it will have oversight to ensure the same failing will not reoccur. The evidence also indicates that its repair records were not clear.
We recognise that the landlord reviewed the complaint after the resident brought his complaint to us, and made an improved offer, which demonstrated learning. However, because it increased the offer after the complaint was duly made, reasonable redress is not an outcome that we can consider. This is because the landlord should have reviewed its compensation at stage 2.
We do, however, consider the landlord’s revised offer of £400 for the repair delay and impact on the resident to be reasonable. It apologised for its failings and acknowledged the detriment caused to the resident and made a reasonable offer of compensation in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. Therefore, we have not made an order for further compensation.

Complaint handling

After the resident brought its his complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord reviewed its complaint handling and acknowledged complaint handling failures. It offered £200 as it found errors stage 1 complaint response and it delayed in providing a stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman finds that this offer of redress was reasonable. However, because the offer was made after the complaint was brought to us, reasonable redress is not a finding we can make.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it failed to identify complaint handling failings in its initial complaint handling investigation and failed to use its complaint handling process effectively to put things right for the resident.

Determination

There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s report’s of a blocked toilet.
There was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

It is ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
If it has not already done so, it is ordered for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £600 that it offered on 5 June 2025.
It is ordered that the landlord carry out a review of its handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet to see what went wrong and to implement improvements to ensure oversight to reduce the likelihood of the same issue reoccurring.
The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report highlights the importance of good record keeping. The evidence assessed in this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report if it has not already done so.