Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Birmingham City Council (202002975)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002975

Birmingham City Council

11 June 2021


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 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to redecorate, following damage caused by a leak from the roof.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

  1. As per section 7.22.8 of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord “will redecorate the affected area or provide an allowance for redecoration following major repair work that we are under a legal obligation to undertake. We will consider each case on its merits, taking into account [the resident’s] age or vulnerability to carry out this work.”
  2. As per sections 3.2 and 3.11 of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord has, respectively, responsibility to repair the property’s structure and exterior, but no responsibility to install, extend or improve existing insulation.
  3. Section 5.2 of the landlord’s repairs policy document confirms that, if damaged is caused to the décor of the resident’s property while carrying out repairs it was obliged to carry out, the resident is entitled to have those areas affected redecorated. Alternatively, residents could ask it to pay for the cost of materials if they wish to redecorate such areas themselves.
  4. As per section 2.5.1 of the landlord’s repairs policy document, it is responsible for keeping the structure of the property, including the roof, chimney and gutters, in repair.


Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a one-bedroom, first-floor flat within a converted house.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s records confirm that it spoke to the resident to accept his stage one complaint to it on 9 July 2020, which is summarised as follows:
    1. The resident was unhappy that the landlord needed to conduct another roof inspection, having already done so in February 2020.
    2. This inconvenienced the resident, who now had to wait for an inspection to be completed, and again for the scaffolding to be erected.
  2. On 9 July 2020, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
    1. It highlighted that, in respect to the landlord having completed a roof inspection in February 2020, “a lot can change in [five] months”, and that there had also been adverse weather in the last month that might have meant that the roof had deteriorated further and that scaffolding was needed in different places.
    2. A new inspection was therefore required. The inspection was booked for 16 July 2020, after which the scaffolding would be ordered.
    3. It apologised for any inconvenience that the repair had caused to the resident.
  3. On 9 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord in response to its stage one complaint response. He advised it that his walls were damp, and that paintwork was ruined. The resident asked if the landlord would be redecorating after the repair had been completed, as he was medically unable to do so.
  4. On 10 July 2020, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident. It highlighted that residents were responsible for the decoration of the property, as per its conditions of tenancy. The landlord apologised for being unable to be more helpful at this time.
  5. On 10 July 2020, the resident responded to the landlord, which is summarised as follows:
    1. He highlighted that the walls of his property were “damaged due to a poorly tiled roof that leaks”, and that the lack of insulation did “not help”.
    2. The resident felt that the landlord should be liable to address the damage to his walls and paintwork, as the damage was caused by a part of the building which the landlord was responsible for.
  6. On 10 July 2020, the landlord responded to the resident to refer him to this Service, as it had exhausted its complaints process. It also provided the resident with a compensation form to claim for the cost of materials, for it to consider paying if there was evidence of negligence or if it accepted legal liability for this and he was not insured against such a claim himself.
  7. The resident subsequently complained to this Service that the landlord should be responsible for carrying out internal decoration works at his property, as its surveyor had confirmed that the leaks there were from the roof and tiles that it was responsible for. We then contacted it for further information about his complaint and it confirmed to us that it had not yet received a completed compensation form from him. The landlord also told this Service that it had explained to the resident that he should have held a contents insurance policy, as encouraged by its conditions of tenancy, but that it had completed repairs to his property’s roof on 2 February 2021.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s initial stage one complaint of 9 July 2020 raised concerns over the need for a further inspection of the roof. The landlord acted reasonably in explaining its reasons for needing to carry out a second inspection in its stage one complaint response, as detailed in paragraph 8 above. This is because it described the possibility of the length of time and the adverse weather since its last roof inspection having caused further deterioration and a need for scaffolding in different places requiring another inspection, which was appropriate.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s obligations from the resident’s tenancy agreement and its repairs policy document, as detailed respectively in paragraphs 2 and 4 above, it is responsible for redecorating the affected areas of the resident’s property that were damaged by repairs that it was obliged to carry out. This is due to it being responsible for the roof and gutters in the property under the tenancy agreement and repairs policy document, as detailed in paragraphs 3 and 5 above, and these reportedly leading to damp walls and damaged paintwork in the property from the leaking roof.
  3. The landlord did not adhere to its above obligations in this case, however, as it did not consider offering to redecorate the damaged areas of the property for the resident, despite his reports that its responsibility for the repairs to which he attributed the damage had triggered its redecorating obligations. It also failed to explain why it did not deem these obligations to be applicable to his case because it only suggested to him on 10 July 2020 that residents were responsible for their decorations in every case, which was incorrect and contrary to his tenancy agreement’s and its repairs policy document’s above provisions. Therefore, maladministration has been found on the landlord’s part for not doing so, which added distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident.
  4. It is recognised that the landlord did provide a compensation form to the resident on 10 July 2020, albeit after it had issued its final stage complaint response to him on that date and following his challenge to this, to make a claim for the cost of materials for carrying out the repair himself. This was partly in accordance with its repairs policy document above at paragraph 4, which permitted it to do so if he wished to redecorate the damaged areas of the property himself. However, the resident had already explained to the landlord on 9 July 2020 that he was medically unable to carry out the work himself, and therefore it was inappropriate for it to have sent this to the resident, particularly as it had not offered to redecorate these areas itself.
  5. This is also because the resident’s tenancy agreement above at paragraph 2 instead required the landlord to consider the merits of the resident’s case and to take into account his age and vulnerability to carry out the redecorating work at the property. It had to do so when deciding whether to arrange redecorating or to provide a redecorating allowance following major repair work that it was under a legal obligation to undertake, such as its roof repairs in his case. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered these factors in relation to the resident, which was unreasonable and contrary to the tenancy agreement.
  6. As per this Service’s remedies guidance, compensation awards from £250 may be made for cases where maladministration has been found, but where there may be no permanent impact on the resident. Examples could include being given incorrect information about a resident’s rights, such as a right to have the affected areas redecorated; and seeking the correction of mistakes, in this case for the landlord’s failure offer this to resolve the resident’s complaint. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to compensate him at the above level, as well as to arrange a suitable date with him for it to redecorate the affected areas, and to review its staff training needs in respect of their application of its above obligations.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way it responded to the resident’s request for it to redecorate, following damage caused by a leak from the roof.


Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to comply with its obligations from the resident’s tenancy agreement and its repairs policy document to consider offering to redecorate the areas that he reported that were affected by the leak from the roof that it was responsible for repairing, to explain why it had not done so, and to take into account the merits of his case, his age and his vulnerability.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £250 compensation within four weeks for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by it not offering to redecorate following the leak in the roof, not explaining why it had not done so, and not considering his circumstances.
    2. Contact the resident within four weeks to arrange a suitable date with him for it to carry out the redecoration of the affected areas.
    3. Review its staff training needs with regard to their application of its tenancy agreements and repairs policy document in relation to redecorating following its repairs. This should include consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
  2. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.