Birmingham City Council (202519056)

Background

1. The resident and his wife are joint tenants. The resident’s wife is terminally ill, blind in one eye, and has mobility issues. The landlord was aware of this at the time of the complaint. An occupational therapist (OT) assessed the property and asked the landlord to install paving slabs to the right-hand side of the front garden. The landlord completed this work but this left a thin strip of uncovered ground between the newly paved area and the garden path. The resident complained that this caused a hazard and that his wife had almost tripped on it one dark evening.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of adaptations to the driveway.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of adaptations to the driveway.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Driveway

6. The landlord completed the original and revised requests for work within a reasonable timeframe.

Complaint handling

7. There were delays in the complaint handling process. The landlord apologised but offered no compensation during the complaint process. It also did not identify any learning points to ensure that similar failings did not occur in the future.

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.

8. During the complaint process the resident expressed his concerns about the OT department and their handling of the request for adaptations. We are unable to assess this because we cannot consider complaints that fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. If the resident is unhappy with the OT assessment or their handling of the situation, he may wish to refer this to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Our investigation has assessed the landlord’s response to the adaptation request, bearing in mind its reliance on an OT assessment.
9. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the landlord’s actions impacted the health of, or caused personal injury to, anyone in the household. A determination relating to damages caused to health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.
10. The landlord’s staying independent at home policy says that adaptations must be completed within 6 months of approval.
11. On 15 August 2024 the OT department sent the landlord a priority needs assessment. This said that it should install paving slabs to the right-hand side and bottom of the front garden to support with safe access to the property.
12. A contractor completed the paving in early February 2026. However, this left a narrow strip of uncovered ground between the newly paved area and the existing path.
13. The landlord contacted the OT department on 4 March 2025 to ask if an OT needed to complete another assessment. This was an appropriate action to take. The OT department replied on 5 March 2025. They said that no further assessment was required.
14. The landlord also arranged for the contractor to revisit the property, which was appropriate. The contractor suggested that the area could be turfed instead. This was a reasonable suggestion considering that the contractor did not have the knowledge that an OT would have and was unaware of the extent of the disabilities within the household.
15. When the resident told the landlord that this was not an acceptable solution an OT visited the property with the contractor, on 10 March 2025. In an email to the resident following this visit the OT advised that in their opinion there was a clear and level access leading to the front door and adequate space to open both car doors to allow access out of the car. Therefore, the OT department did not recommend any further work. The contractor would however, as a gesture of good will, put gravel or turf on the uncovered strip of ground.
16. On 15 April 2025, an OT revisited the property following a report by the resident that his wife had tripped on the area in question and injured herself. An OT then recommended that new paving was completed to the rest of the path to remove the strip of uncovered ground and make it level with the rest of the driveway. A contractor completed this work on 26 May 2025.
17. In summary, the landlord was reliant on the recommendations of the OT department and it completed the work initially, as requested, within its policy target timescale. It communicated with the OT department appropriately. An OT confirmed that the landlord had completed their original recommendation and that no further work was required. When the OT revised their opinion, the landlord again completed the work within its policy target timescale. Therefore, there was no maladministration in its handling of the adaptations to the driveway.

18. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
19. In this case there may have been a delay in the landlord receiving the complaint via another department within the local authority. However, more robust processes should have been in place to prevent such delays from occurring. This error meant that the resident did not receive a stage 1 complaint response for 17 working days. During which time he spent time and trouble chasing a response.
20. The Code also says that landlords must acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days of acknowledgement. However, in this case the landlord took 15 working days to acknowledge receipt of the stage 2 complaint which meant that it took 24 working days overall to provide a response. This further delay cost the resident further time and trouble as he continued to chase a response. It also delayed his access to an investigation by this Service.
21. Although the landlord apologised for the delays in its complaint responses it did not offer any compensation at that time or demonstrate that it had found any specific learning points.
22. However, since then it has reviewed the case and offered the resident £150 compensation to reflect the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
23. Although this can be said to have put things right for the resident, the landlord did not offer it until several months after it had issued its final complaint response. It also did not make the offer of compensation until the case had been accepted by this Service for investigation. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances. This is particularly the case where the landlord has not demonstrated specific learning points to ensure that similar failings do not occur in the future. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

24. The landlord should ensure that complaints are passed to them in a timely manner if misdirected to another team.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. No issues identified.

Communication

26. There was adequate communication between the landlord and the OT department regarding the works. However, the landlord should consider whether it could have escalated the matter within the wider organisation to ensure that the resident received a response regarding his concerns about the actions of the OT department.