Birmingham City Council (202514498)

Background

1. The property is a flat. The resident and her family members have health vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of. The resident reported a number of leaks to the landlord from the flat above. The landlord has carried out some repairs, but the leaks remain outstanding.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of leaks from a property above causing damage to the resident’s property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Leaks from a property above causing damage to the resident’s property.
   2. The associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Leaks from above

5. The landlord was not pro-active in resolving the leaks from above. It did not monitor or communicate with its contractor effectively and it did not take a holistic view of the repair issue or investigate the root cause of the problem. There have been repeated and ongoing leaks from the property above since 2023. The situation has recently worsened and remains unresolved. The landlord accepted some errors during its complaints process and awarded compensation, but its offer was not enough to put things right for the resident.

Associated complaint

6. The landlord did not identify what would happen next or provide a resolution to put things right within its complaints process. Its stage 2 complaint response lacked empathy for the resident’s situation and did not address the resident’s reasons for escalating her complaint.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

7. The resident has referred leaks from above since 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord investigated the leaks from above dating back to December 2023. Therefore, we have assessed the landlord’s actions from December 2023 because we have the information we need to investigate from this period. Earlier reports of issues have provided context to the current complaint, but do not form part of this investigation.
8. The landlord issued its final complaint response in April 2025 and provided a further investigation to the resident in September 2025. At the time this report, the substantive issues in the case remain outstanding. For fairness, we have increased the scope of the investigation to the present day to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the issues raised in the complaint.
9. Between December 2023 and March 2025, the repairs log indicated the resident reported at least 5 leaks from the above property affecting her bathroom, lounge and hallway. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it should attend emergency repairs within 2 hours. It should attend urgent repairs within 1, 3 or 7 working days depending on the severity of the repair issue. Routine repairs should be completed within 30 days. The landlord’s contractor said it attended each individual leak within its repairs policy timescales and the resident has not disputed this. This was positive.
10. On 20 December 2023, the contractor’s repairs notes stated it was unable to gain access to the property above and it closed the repair as complete “because nothing more could be done”. This was unreasonable and a breach of the landlord’s repairs policy which states that jobs are left open until all the work is complete. The landlord should have made further efforts to gain access to the property above, following a formal tenancy enforcement process to gain access if needed.
11. Between January 2024 and February 2025 there were 4 further examples of repairs jobs being closed without a lasting repair made. Some of the records indicated that temporary fixes had been applied but it was unclear what these were. This was a record keeping failing, which is referenced below.
12. We are aware there were periods of time when the resident was not reporting leaks from above into her property. However, the frequency of the resident’s reports should have prompted the landlord to investigate the root cause of the issue. This was a failing which contributed to the delays on the case and may have led the resident to feeling that the landlord was not committed to resolving the repairs.
13. Additionally, there was no evidence the landlord’s contractor investigated the property above (the suspected source of the leak) until October 2024. This was over 10 months after the contractors had stated that an inspection of the flat above was needed. The landlord provided no explanation for this delay. This was a significant failing which caused considerable delays, distress and inconvenience to the resident because the leaks had not been investigated and so therefore could not be resolved.
14. On 21 October 2024, a structural technician attended the property. It confirmed there was a “constant leak” into the resident’s property from the property above and it recommended the landlord investigated this. There was no evidence the landlord acted upon this. This was a further failing which contributed to the severity of the case. The landlord was aware of the ongoing nature of the leaks. It should have followed the advice of its contractor. By not carrying out this assessment, the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the underlying issue and prevent further leaks.
15. The landlord’s repair records were unclear. Several entries did not confirm whether jobs were completed, and some appeared to be duplicates. As part of its stage 1 investigation, the landlord contacted its contractor for information about repairs at the property. While it was reasonable to request additional details, we expect landlords to maintain adequate oversight of services outsourced to contractors. This is because the obligation to repair, remains with the landlord although it may employ contractors to do the work. There was no evidence the landlord monitored the repairs. This was a significant failing that contributed to failings and delays throughout the case.
16. We carried out a special investigation into the landlord in January 2023. We found that the landlord had no framework in place for the record keeping it expects of its staff and contractors. It is concerning to note that over 2 years later similar failures occurred in this complaint. We therefore order the landlord to carry out a case review with a focus on how it monitors, and has oversight of, its repairs.
17. The resident told us that the situation has significantly worsened since the end of the landlord’s complaints process. She said there were 2 further leaks in August 2025 which resulted in loss of power, electrical issues and the emergency services attending the property. She also explained that “water constantly drips through an asbestos ceiling” and described the events as “extremely traumatic”.
18. There was some evidence to suggest the landlord was aware of the possible presence of asbestos in the property and may have taken action to assess this. However, the records were unclear. Therefore, we order the landlord to inspect the property for asbestos and complete the necessary works, if it has not done so already.
19. On 8 December 2025, the landlord sent us a list of recent repairs which have been reported by the resident. Between 20 October 2025 and 8 December 2025 there have been 7 separate jobs raised regarding further leaks at the property. The landlord told us that some of these relate to an issue with the balcony of the flat above, which it said has been rectified.
20. However, the resident told us the issues are ongoing and there was no evidence to suggest the landlord has taken a holistic view of the situation, investigated the root cause of the leaks from the above property or completed a long-lasting repair to resolve the issues. We order the landlord to arrange for a suitably qualified contractor to inspect the resident’s property and the property above to determine the root cause of the leaks from above and complete the required works to achieve a lasting resolution.
21. The resident told us that her, and her family’s health, had been affected by the issues within her complaint. We acknowledge this has been a difficult time for her and her family. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
22. The landlord was aware of health vulnerabilities within the household. However, there was no evidence that it considered the impact of the ongoing water leaks into the property on the resident or her family. The landlord’s lack of urgency with regards to resolving the issues demonstrated a lack of empathy for the resident and her circumstances. This was a further failing which may have damaged the landlord-tenant relationship.
23. The resident told us that she wants to move property and her request to be rehoused or “moved up in banding” has not been properly considered. The allocation of local authority housing stock in England is governed by the Housing Act, which sets out the circumstances in which reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints regarding the applicant’s banding, or priority. We are aware the resident has taken her complaint to the LGSCO. Therefore, this part of the resident’s complaint was not included within the scope of our investigation.
24. The resident also told us that she has lost a number of personal items as a result of the leaks. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised  the loss and damage of her personal possessions in her complaint. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue. However, we recommend the landlord responds to her claim.
25. Our Remedies Guidance (published on our website), sets out our approach to compensation. It states that in cases where extremely serious failures by the landlord have been identified which had a serious impact on the resident, we may award compensation of over £1000. Therefore, the £296 awarded to the resident at the end of the complaints process was not an appropriate or fair amount. It did not proportionately reflect the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident up until the end of the complaints process.
26. We note the landlord wrote to the resident on 10 September 2025 and increased its offer of compensation to £925 (the previous offer of £296 had been withdrawn by the landlord when the resident had not accepted it). However, the landlord’s offer of higher compensation was 5 months after the end of the landlord’s complaints process. It is our role to consider the landlord’s handling of complaints through its internal complaints process. Where a landlord makes an offer of compensation after the end of its complaints process, we may make a finding of service failure or maladministration by the landlord as the offer should have been made during the complaints process.
27. We do not consider that the £925 awarded to the resident in September 2025 was an appropriate or fair amount at the time it was offered. It did not proportionately reflect the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident, particularly as the issues are still ongoing. We order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £575 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the leaks from an above property.
28. Overall, there were a series of significant failings by the landlord which accumulated over a prolonged period. These failings have had a serious impact on the resident and her family. The landlord showed a lack of ownership of the resident’s case and a lack of urgency to resolve her complaint through to completion. It held information regarding the household’s vulnerabilities but failed to use it, leading to avoidable distress and inconvenience. Poor communication and record keeping also added to the unreasonable delays that the resident experienced.

29. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It’s policy states it will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. The landlord will issue a full response within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and within 20 working days for complaints at stage 2. These timescales align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices.
30. The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response 4 working days outside of its complaints policy timescales and its stage 2 response 6 days outside of its timescales. These were failings because the landlord was not compliant with its complaints policy. However, we recognise this delay would have likely had a minimal impact on the resident.
31. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response provided a summary of the reported repairs and found the complaint to be “justified”. However, it did not take responsibility for the failings. It stated the contractor “had not done enough early enough”. It’s use of language inferred that the failings were the fault of the contractor. As mentioned above, the responsibility for the repairs remains with the landlord even if it outsources these services. The landlord’s lack of accountability was a missed opportunity to rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship and put things right.
32. The landlord said, in its stage 2 complaint response, it was “unable to establish” what the resident wanted to be reviewed. The use of language was dismissive and lacked empathy for the resident’s circumstances. This was unreasonable and may have led the resident to feel that the landlord was not listening to her.
33. The resident’s escalation request clearly stated that the landlord’s stage 1 response had not provided a “permanent solution” to the issue and that she wanted the root cause of the leaks from above investigated. If the landlord required further clarification regarding what the resident was seeking, it should have contacted the resident directly to confirm this. There was no evidence it did this and this was a significant complaint handling failing.
34. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case, the landlord missed opportunities to put things right because it failed to address the issues within the complaint or identify a resolution at any point during the complaints process.
35. On 10 September 2025 the landlord told the resident it had conducted a further investigation into her complaint. It apologised for its handling of the resident’s complaint which was positive. However, it still failed to address the issues of the ongoing leaks from above or put things right for the resident.
36. We order the landlord to pay the resident £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by complaint handling failings identified within this report. This is in line with our remedies guidance as referenced above which suggests awards in this range where there have been errors by the landlord which affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact from the errors.

Learning

37. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance says that landlords should investigate “patterns of failure” and “avoid a narrow, transactional mindset”. The landlord should “look beyond the immediate fault to understand why the problem occurred and whether there are underlying systemic issues”.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. It is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If the information the landlord provides is not clear, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its repairs policy. In this case, the landlord’s records were not clear which affected its handling of the repairs.

Communication

39. The landlord may want to consider how it communicates with residents during its complaints process. Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights highlights the importance of empathy and use of tone to support positive communication with its residents.