Birmingham City Council (202005838)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005838

Birmingham City Council

13 April 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 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 concerns about the accuracy of the landlord’s contractor’s account of a repair visit at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since 7 May 2018. The landlord is a local authority.
3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy.
4. The landlord employs a repair contractor to carry out repairs at the property.

Summary of events

5. Based on the landlord’s repair logs provided to this service, as well as comments provided to this service by the resident, it is not disputed that the landlord’s repair contractor attended the property in May and June 2020 to carry out repairs to the resident’s heating system.
6. The landlord’s repair logs provided to this service noted that on 1 July 2020 there was a “failed” repair appointment and “the tenant refusing access and being very aggressive.” In response to this service’s request for information, the landlord has also provided a quote from the contractor’s repair notes regarding a visit on 29 July 2020 which stated that “[tenant] very aggressive on arrival,” and “he refused access then started swearing at me, so I left.” It is evident that this account of events was communicated to the resident, however, details of this communication has not been provided to this service.
7. On 31 July 2020, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord. He disputed that he had denied access to the repair contractor during the “2nd repair to boiler.” The landlord’s record of the complaint provided to this service does not reference the date of the visit referred to. The resident also noted he had “CCTV evidence to prove access was given.”
8. The landlord provided a stage one response on the same date. It noted that it had checked its repair log notes and had spoken with the repair contractor as part of its investigation and concluded that there was a “difference in the version of events which took place.” It advised its repair log notes stated that during its visit on 1 July 2020, “you were very aggressive on arrival, … our engineer asked what was wrong with the heating and it states you swore at him and refused access, so our engineer left.” It apologised, however, for not having given the resident prior warning of the appointment. It noted that a further appointment was arranged for 29 July 2020, and that on 28 July 2020, the resident had contacted the landlord and advised that he “did not want this appointment as British gas had come out and repaired the heating.” The landlord further noted that it “offered to cancel the repair for you but you did not want me to do this.”
9. The landlord additionally advised that the repair contractor “attended your property on 29/07/20 … and they both state they were refused access.” It also reminded the resident of his obligations under the tenancy agreement “not to harass … anyone contracted to work for the [landlord].”
10. On 18 August 2020, the resident disputed the version of events presented in the landlord’s stage one response and advised that “contractors never came to the appointment.”
11. The landlord provided its stage two response on 1 September 2020. It reiterated that the repair contractor’s repair notes stated that they had attended the property on 29 July 2020 at 12:21pm and were “unable to gain access.” In reference to the resident’s CCTV evidence, the landlord noted he was “yet to supply this evidence. As a result, I can only uphold the original complaint outcome, which was to not uphold your complaint.” It further noted that it considered its stage one response to fully address the issue.
12. In a telephone call with this service on 8 December 2020, the resident disputed he swore on any of the visits and advised that he was not at home during the final attempted visit.

Assessment and findings

13. It is clear that there are two very different accounts in respect of the resident’s conduct during visits by the repair contractor on 1 July 2020 and 29 July 2020. As this service was not present, it is not possible for us to determine what actually happened. Therefore, it is for the Ombudsman to consider the available evidence and to decide whether the landlord’s response was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
14. Given that the resident’s initial complaint did not specify the date of the appointment which he disputed he had denied access for, it was reasonable for the landlord to outline the accounts of both 1 July 2020 and 29 July 2020 in its stage one response. It was also appropriate that the landlord outlined the sources it had used for its investigation. Given that these accounts differed from the resident’s, and the lack of any further evidence, it was reasonable that it could not uphold the complaint.
15. While it would have been helpful to have addressed the resident’s mention of CCTV evidence in the landlord’s response, the Ombudsman considers the consultation of the repair logs to have been a reasonable and proportionate investigation in the circumstances.
16. Given the reports from its repair contractor of abusive language by the resident, it was reasonable that the landlord outlined the resident’s obligations in the tenancy agreement, without directly accusing the resident of using abusive language.
17. Following the resident’s request for an escalation, given that there was no further evidence provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to reiterate its position as set out in its stage one response. While it noted that the resident had not been forthcoming with any CCTV evidence, it is also not evident that the landlord requested it, however as noted above, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s investigation was proportionate and reasonable.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s concerns about the accuracy of the landlord’s contractor’s account of a repair visit at the property.

Reasons

19. The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns about the repair contractor’s accounts of their visits by consulting the repair logs and speaking with the repair contractor. Given there were differing accounts of the events, without any conclusive evidence either way, it was reasonable that the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.