Birmingham City Council (202517433)

Background

1. The resident was living at the property with her children who have vulnerabilities, which includes respiratory conditions. In January 2025 she told the landlord she was experiencing a roof leak, as well as damp and mould. She and her children were moved to temporary accommodation which led to her complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about roof repairs, the associated damp and mould, and temporary move.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress offered by the landlord which resolved the complaint about its handling of the resident’s concerns about roof repairs, the associated damp and mould, and temporary move.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Roof repairs, the associated damp and mould, and temporary move.

5. The landlord risk assessed at the outset and provided a temporary move for the resident and her vulnerable children. It recognised its service failings, including unreasonable delays with repairing the roof and addressing damp and mould, and offered to put things right with £2,400 compensation. This was proportionate to the failings.

Complaint handling

6. There was a minor delay by the landlord in acknowledging the resident’s complaint at both stages. It reassured her it would complete repairs, but the content of the response could have been improved by providing estimated timeframes at that stage. Excluding these minor errors, it followed its complaints policy.

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 said she went to court about disrepair (including roof repairs) in the property prior to January 2025 and told us the courts ruled in her favour. We cannot comment on matters that were decided at court or subject to legal proceedings. This investigation has focused on events from January 2025, as addressed in both stages of the landlord’s complaints process, which was exhausted on 30 May 2025
8. The resident complained the damp and mould and the temporary accommodation affected her health and that of her children. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord
9. Further, an outcome the resident wants is to be permanently rehoused. That is not an outcome we can provide in the circumstances.
10. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places obligations on the landlord to repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the property, this includes the roof. This is echoed in the resident’s tenancy agreement. Also, under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System the landlord is required to consider whether damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
11. The landlord was put on notice by the resident on 23 January 2025 that the roof required further repairs as there was a leak and associated damp and mould. It was positive the landlord risk assessed at that stage and considered that the resident’s children were vulnerable. It inspected the property on 27 January 2025 and found the property was not suitable for the family to remain in, due to the roof leak and the extent of damp and mould.
12. On the same day as the inspection, the landlord proactively obtained the resident’s consent to be moved to temporary accommodation. The landlord clearly communicated that this was not a permanent move, and she would need to move back into the property within 7 days after it had completed the repairs. We have seen evidence she accepted moving into the hotel and signed the disclaimer on 28 January 2025. The landlord acted in line with its ‘decant procedure’. 
13. The landlord’s repairs policy states routine repairs were to be completed in 30 days. The policy adds that some repairs would fall out of these timescales, such as when it needs special materials and arrangements. In these circumstances the landlord would advise a resident on the timescales to expect. We acknowledge that the roof repairs were complex. However, there is no evidence the landlord managed the resident’s expectations with repair timescales at the outset. It was clear her hotel stay was frequently extended from 28 January 2025 which caused her inconvenience.
14. The evidence showed that initially the landlord’s contractors believed roof repairs to have been completed by 12 March 2025. The resident disputed this position and ultimately complained on 1 April 2025. The landlord showed it was trying to resolve the resident’s concerns about the lack of cooking and washing facilities (at the hotel) as it referred her for another temporary property on 3 April 2025 if and when available. This was prompt after she expressed dissatisfaction with the current temporary accommodation.
15. The landlord’s contractors completed additional repairs to the roof on 22 April 2025. The landlord is reliant on the professional opinion of its contractors who had confirmed to it the roof was repaired. However, the resident provided the landlord contrasting evidence via a private contractor on 30 April 2025. It was fair at that stage for the landlord to relay issues with the quality of works to its contractors. It did so promptly on 1 May 2025 and we can see a decision was made to install a new roof on 9 May 2025.
16. From 12 May 2025 we can see the landlord chased its contractors for updates on the status of the repairs. The resident was also kept informed of a potential alternative accommodation she could move to, depending on completing repairs at those properties.
17. By the landlord’s final response, it had acknowledged repairs had taken an unreasonable amount of time and the quality of previous repairs were poor. It also assured the resident it would action the repairs required. This showed it took ownership of its contractors’ actions and was actively monitoring the ongoing repairs.
18. The landlord also acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident by living in a hotel. It was reasonable that it provided its position on why she was offered a hotel (no other properties were available). The landlord’s decant procedure states the property offered may not be of the same type and size as the resident’s tenancy. Ultimately, the temporary move was in line with its procedure, and it mitigated the resident and her vulnerable children having to live at the property exposed to damp and mould.
19. To put things right the landlord offered the resident £2,400 in compensation. It is clear the landlord considered the resident’s full experience at that stage in line with its own compensation policy. This level of compensation falls in the highest tier of our remedies guidance for the most serious failings.
20. The repairs have been completed by the landlord, and the resident was advised of this. Considering all the above, the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the failings in this case. As such, we have found reasonable redress.

21. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. Its website confirms it aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days which is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its complaints policy (published in 2023) does not specify it would acknowledge complaint escalations. The complaints policy says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of its acknowledgement, this mirrors the response times in the Code.
22. The landlord was 4 working days over target acknowledging the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 3 working days over target at stage 2. It failed to identify these errors during its own investigation. However, after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint and escalation request, it provided a formal response at both stages of the process within the timescales set out within its policy and the Code. While there was some delay, this was minor and would not have caused the resident adverse effect.
23. The Code says a stage 2 response must detail any outstanding actions. Any remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. The landlord’s complaint responses covered the resident’s concerns at the time, but its final response omitted any estimated timeframes for completion of the repairs. Had it provided estimated timeframes, this likely would have better managed the resident’s expectations.
24. The landlord also committed to calculating compensation owed in its final response. This was in line with the Code as it clearly set out the action it intended to take and ultimately the £2,400 in compensation offered was part of its internal complaints procedure, prior to our involvement.
25. Having considered all the evidence, the landlord’s actions and inactions did not exacerbate the situation through its handling of the resident’s complaint. Overall, there is no evidence the resident experienced detriment due to any of the above minor failings. As such we have found no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

26. In January 2023 we published a special investigation report into the landlord which made a number of recommendations. These included:
    1. A framework for its record keeping standards, including the standards expected of contractors acting on its behalf.
    2. Monitor and review repair progress with its contractors to ensure residents do not have to make repeated requests for repairs and take a proactive approach.
27. The landlord was able to provide a strong audit trail of its communication with the resident and its contractors, which was positive. It evidenced in this case that it had applied the above recommendations following the resident’s complaint.
28. As above, the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding timescales for the roof repairs from January 2025 was poor, however it was able to demonstrate it was listening to her feedback. It used the resident’s complaint to improve its communication frequency and was more proactive in keeping her updated.

Complaint handling

29. The landlord is reminded that the Code is statutory, and it must comply with the timescales and procedures set for acknowledgement and responses. While its website mirrors the timescales set out in the Code, it should ensure consistency for its publications and communication with residents to avoid confusion regarding response times.
30. Additionally, the Code states landlords must have processes in place to ensure that a complaint can be remedied at any stage of its complaints process and without the need for escalation. While in this case the landlord’s final response committed to calculating compensation for the resident and it then did so in a timely manner, we encourage landlords offer redress to residents at the earliest opportunity and ideally within the stated timeframes of their complaints procedure.