Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (202419593)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419593

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

30 September 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs.
2. Concerns regarding comments made by a surveyor during a visit to the property.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is a local authority, and she occupies a 2-bedroom house with her 5-year-old child.
In April 2024, repairs were reported for the re-enamelling of the resident’s bathtub and fallen fence panels in her garden. Thereafter, she made 2 separate complaints about the issues being investigated by this Service.
In stage 1 responses dated 15 August and 11 October 2024, the landlord accepted service failures and shortcomings in relation to some aspects of the resident’s concerns, but did not uphold other elements of her complaint. The earlier of the 2 responses stated this was the landlord’s final response and advised the resident to contact the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident duly referred her complaint to this Service on 19 August 2024. She told us the repairs had not been done and her mental health was declining due to constantly chasing jobs “which never get done”.
The landlord subsequently informed this Service it had used the stage 2 template in error. Therefore, it was allowed an opportunity to provide a final response to both complaints and it issued a stage 2 response on 17 April 2025. It stated it had not upheld the complaint because the resident had not clarified her allegations of service failures or unreasonable delays, no specific repair issues were raised, and no new information or evidence was provided.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her concerns and asked us to investigate her complaint. On 17 September 2025, she told us that, although the landlord had completed the repairs, these were not done to a good standard.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told us her concerns raised with the landlord included repairs to cracks on the walls of her child’s bedroom. However, this issue was not included in her formal complaint and was not addressed as part of the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, in line with the Scheme, we will not assess the landlord’s handling of this particular repair. The resident may refer the issue to us for separate investigation once it has completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
The resident has told us the outstanding repairs in the property impacted on her mental health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, we cannot establish what caused a health issue or award damages for personal injury, as this would usually be better dealt with by a court.

Repairs

The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with its repairs and maintenance leaflet, dated November 2019, which provides the following timescales for carrying out repairs:
1. Urgent repairs – within 5 working days.
2. Routine repairs – within 25 working days.
3. Major works – within 60 working days.
Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. It should have appropriate systems in place to keep records of repairs and monitor the outcome of contractor appointments so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
In this case, there appear to be gaps in the evidence provided. For example, the landlord has not provided us with evidence of the resident’s initial report relating to the issue with her bathtub. The available evidence supports the resident’s assertion that there was an inspection of her property in April 2024. However, there is no evidence relating to the outcome of this inspection, so we cannot ascertain what repairs were identified or what, if any, works were agreed at the time. There is also limited contemporaneous evidence of the outcome of other inspections and repair appointments. This amounts to a record keeping failure and/or a failure to provide this Service with information for our investigation. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot assess if the landlord took timely and appropriate actions.
Records show the landlord’s contractor attended in response to repairs raised by the landlord for the re-enamelling of the resident’s bathtub on 11 April, 24 July and 27 August 2024. Each time, they advised that a new bathtub was required because the damage to the enamel was below the waterline and a big rust patch had appeared. Despite this, internal emails dated 3 and 4 July 2024 show the landlord had previously decided it would only carry out a “patch repair”/“touch up” to the bathtub and its decision on this was final. This demonstrates a rigid, unresponsive approach to repairs and amounts to an unreasonable refusal to objectively consider its contractor’s recommendations. Consequently, there was avoidable delay in resolving matters for the resident.
A further repair order was raised on 20 September 2024 and the bathtub was replaced on 2 October 2024, approximately 6 months after the first repair was raised in April 2024. This was excessive against the landlord’s policy timescale of 25 working days for routine repairs.
Similarly, there was a delay in completing repairs to fallen fence panels, first reported by the resident to the landlord on 29 April 2024. No progress was made on the repair and the resident chased this on 3 June 2024. She reported that 2 more panels had come away and had nails sticking out of them. She said she had a young child with autism and asked for an urgent update on the repair.
Internal emails of 3 and 17 July 2024 referred to a variation order for the fence repair, which was approved on 12 July 2024. It is unclear why a variation order was needed or when the landlord and/or the contractor attended to the repair. Based on the available evidence, works were likely completed following a repair order raised on 31 July 2024, over 3 months after the issue was reported. Again, this significantly exceeded the 25-working-day timescale for routine repairs.
Repairs were delayed due to inadequate record keeping and staff turnover as inspections had to be done again. This is reflected in an email from the landlord’s repairs manager to the resident on 27 June 2024, where they stated they were “not aware of the repair issues at the property so the only way to take this forward would be to undertake an inspection due to the staff member leaving the council”. Consequently, there were multiple contractor attendances and repeat inspections, and records show several works orders were raised and re-raised, causing confusion among staff. This demonstrates a prolonged failure by the landlord to monitor the outcome of appointments and oversee the outstanding works to completion.
The email from the repairs manager on 27 June 2024 apologised for missing an inspection that morning. They stated, “I had a family emergency at the last moment and am not working today.” They said they would call the resident in the afternoon to book another appointment at her earliest convenience. While clearly frustrating for the resident, the repairs manager’s unexpected absence meant the last-minute cancellation of the inspection was unavoidable. It would have been good practice for the landlord to contact the resident as soon as possible to advise that the repairs manager could not attend the inspection, but it did not do so. This was unsatisfactory.
Communication with the resident was poor throughout the landlord’s handling of the matter. For example, there is no evidence it responded to her query regarding the installation of taller fence panels when she reported the repair on 29 April 2024. She chased for progress and updates on 3 June and 3 July 2024. Internal emails on 17 July 2024 suggest the variation order for the fence repair was approved on 12 July 2024. However, when asked to update the resident on this, the repairs manager passed this on to the surveyor as she had made a formal complaint about the missed appointment.
The resident also asked for an update on her bathtub repair on 3 July 2024, but there is no evidence the repairs team called her back. Internal emails stated it had already advised her of its decision. The resident called again on 24 July 2024 as she was still waiting for a call back. The surveyor’s internal email asked another repairs manager to notify the resident of its decision to carry out a patch repair to the bathtub, suggesting a reluctance to contact her.
Overall, it is appropriate to find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs because:
1. It failed to keep adequate records and/or to provide information for our investigation.
2. It unreasonably refused to consider the contractor’s recommendations for a new bathtub. It finally replaced the bathtub 6 months after the first repair order was raised, which was an excessive and avoidable delay.
3. It took over 3 months to complete the repair to fallen fence panels, which was excessive against the 25-working-day timescale for routine repairs.
4. Multiple attendances and repeated inspections were required due to poor record keeping and staff turnover.
5. It did not contact the resident to let her know the repairs manager was unexpectedly absent and could not attend the inspection on 27 June 2024.
6. Its communications with the resident were poor and she chased for updates on multiple occasions.
It is clear from the resident’s repeated contact chasing progress and updates that the landlord’s failures in its handling of repairs caused her a moderate degree of distress and inconvenience over a period of approximately 6 months. Therefore, we consider she should be compensated for this. In the absence of any clear guidelines in the landlord’s policy on levels of compensation awards, it is appropriate to use our remedies guidance. As there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, we take the view it is fair and reasonable to direct an award for maladministration.

Surveyor’s comments

The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence relating to the surveyor’s visit. This further highlights its poor record keeping practices and/or a failure to provide us with information. Consequently, we cannot ascertain when the visit took place and what was discussed. In the absence of this evidence, this assessment focuses on the parties’ comments in relation to this complaint.
The landlord’s record of the resident’s complaint noted that the surveyor reportedly tried to give parenting advice when her child was crying and told her “she needs to give more attention to her child”. In its response dated 11 October 2024, the landlord stated it could neither confirm nor deny the resident’s allegations that the surveyor had made personal comments about her parenting during the inspection of her property. It said the surveyor’s role was to focus on property assessments. It added that if something was said that was not in line with its standards of professionalism, it apologised for this.
The landlord has since told this Service the surveyor has denied the allegation made by the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides, “It is far easier to find out what happened and to put things right if complaints are received at the time the issue happened. As time passes it becomes more difficult to investigate events fairly and fully – people’s memories fade, staff who were closely involved may have left the council, or records may no longer be available.”
It is understood the resident made her complaint to the landlord shortly after the surveyor’s visit and the surveyor remained in its employment. Therefore, in line with its policy, it would have been good practice for the landlord to demonstrate it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously by conducting a timely and robust investigation. A reasonable approach would have included interviewing the surveyor and ensuring it documented their response to the allegation made. Although it subsequently confirmed the surveyor had denied the allegations, it is unclear what steps it took and when. Consequently, we cannot ascertain if it fairly and objectively investigated the resident’s concerns at the time.
As there are conflicting versions of events and no independent evidence, the Ombudsman cannot confirm one way or the other what actually happened. However, we take the view it was a matter for the landlord to undertake timely investigations into the resident’s complaint at the time. There is no evidence it did so, which was inappropriate.
In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to find that the landlord’s handling of this complaint amounts to service failure. We consider it fair and reasonable to direct it to pay the resident compensation, in line with our remedies guidance, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of this aspect of her concerns.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy, dated February 2021, includes the following provisions:
1. It operates a 2-stage complaints procedure.
2. It will acknowledge receipt of a stage 1 complaint and stage 2 escalation request within 3 working days.
3. It will provide its complaint responses, at both stages 1 and 2, within 10 working days of the case being allocated to the complaint handler.
4. For complex cases, the 10-day timeframe mentioned may be extended for up to a further 10 working days. It will update the complainant accordingly, providing details of when they can expect a full response.
The landlord repeatedly failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with these timescales. For instance, it did not acknowledge either of her complaints at stage 1, nor the stage 2 escalation of both complaints by this Service.
The landlord responded to the complaint of 27 June 2024 36 working days later, on 15 August 2024. This was beyond the 10 working days stated in its complaints policy and our statutory Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”), and there is no evidence it advised the resident of any updated timescales for providing its response. This was unreasonable.
It is unclear when the second complaint was made to the landlord, so the Ombudsman cannot assess whether or not the stage 1 response dated 11 October 2024 was timely.
The landlord’s responses addressed each of the issues raised in the resident’s complaints. It apologised for the missed appointment, the communication shortcomings and delays in its handling of repairs. It sought to demonstrate learning from the resident’s experience by acknowledging the opportunities for service improvements in its communication, staff continuity, and workload management. Further, it highlighted changes it was making to avoid similar occurrences in the future.
The statement that the response of 15 August 2024 was the landlord’s final response was inconsistent with its 2-stage complaints procedure and the Code. This caused confusion for the resident.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained it had erroneously issued a stage 2 complaint template in response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It said that, while this was not procedurally incorrect, it accepted clearer communication may have helped prevent confusion and it apologised for any inconvenience. It concluded by saying it had not upheld the complaint because the resident had not clarified her concerns or raised specific repair issues. It said no new information or evidence was provided and, instead, she “referred to dissatisfaction with named officers and historical events raised at stage 1”.
It was not accurate for the landlord to suggest it was “not procedurally incorrect” that it used the stage 2 template in response to a stage 1 complaint. That was the very issue with its response dated 15 August 2024 – that it appeared to deny the resident a stage 2 review of her complaint.
Allowing the landlord to provide a stage 2 response to the resident’s complaints was, essentially, an opportunity for it to review its responses at stage 1. However, it unreasonably dismissed the resident’s continued dissatisfaction as “historical events raised at stage 1”, which was inappropriate. The response was not reflective of our Dispute Resolution Principles, as the landlord failed to use its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s concerns.
Overall, it is appropriate to find maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling in this case. There were multiple failings that resulted in confusion, distress and inconvenience to the resident. Therefore, we consider it fair and reasonable to direct the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of this impact, in line with our remedies guidance.
While there are elements of the complaints policy provided to this Service that are not compliant with the Code, we note a compliant, up-to-date policy is published on its website. Therefore, no orders or recommendations have been made in this regard.
Finally, the Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling practices. We have, therefore, referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding comments made by a surveyor during a visit to the property.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with this Service’s apologies guidance.
2. Contact the resident to ask if she would like it to open a formal complaint about cracks on the walls in her child’s bedroom.
3. Pay the resident compensation totalling £550, which comprises:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its failings in the handling of her reports of repairs.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its handling of her concerns about the surveyor’s comments.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its complaint handling failures.
  4. These sums should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with the recommendations made by the Ombudsman at pages 62 to 64 of our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, and considers refresher training for relevant frontline staff.