Walsall Housing Group Limited (202325741)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325741

Walsall Housing Group Limited

10 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for a driveway repair.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house with a driveway which is on the side of the house.
  2. In October 2016, the resident reported on a couple of occasions issues with the driveway and explained that this made accessing the front door difficult. The same month, the landlord inspected the property but considered the repairs to be the resident’s responsibility.
  3. For the period from April 2017 to July 2023, the resident reported the driveway issue on 4 more occasions, describing this as a deteriorating hazard. The landlord arranged further inspections on 28 April 2017 and 4 September 2023 but it maintained it was not responsible for the driveway repairs.
  4. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and referred the matter to this Service on 3 October 2023. She explained that she made several complaints regarding the state of her driveway to the landlord, which was dangerous and needed a repair. She also reported that the landlord failed to respond to her complaints.
  5. On 19 December 2023, this Service contacted the landlord regarding the resident’s complaint and the landlord logged a formal complaint.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 January 2024. It acknowledged the historic repair requests from 2016 and 2017, and more recent events in 2023. It maintained that driveway repairs were the resident’s responsibility. It confirmed that on 9 January 2024, a team leader had inspected the property and had offered during the inspection to install a new access footpath to the front and back doors. It also concluded that it responded to the resident’s enquiries regarding the driveway and completed inspections within its timescales.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and requested the escalation of her complaint on 17 January 2024 during a telephone call. She explained the landlord failed to complete repairs to the driveway.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 March 2024. It reaffirmed its position that it was not responsible for driveway repairs and did not find any service failures. It reiterated its offer to install a pathway to the front and back doors, which remained open.
  9. The resident explained to the Service that the driveway remained a hazard and continued to sink.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service has seen evidence of the resident’s request for repair to the driveway since 2016 and the landlord’s responses of no responsibility to complete such repair. This Service however has not seen evidence of a formal response being raised until the resident contact us in October 2023. While the historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from July 2023 that were considered in the landlord’s final response. This is because in accordance with our Scheme, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlord’s normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a driveway repair

  1. The Housing Act 2004 (the 2004 Act) requires landlords to provide a safe and healthy environment in their properties by keeping these free from unnecessary and avoidable hazards, and by providing adequate protection from these, including falling elements, structural collapse, and damp and mould growth.
  2. The repair policy states routine repairs are day to day repairs which do not cause immediate inconvenience. These will be attended to and completed within a maximum of 45 days.
  3. The repairs and maintenance guide states that residents are responsible for the driveway, while the landlord was responsible for access path to front or back door if damaged.
  4. The resident first reported the repair to the driveway in October 2016, stating it was unsafe and deteriorating. She disputed it was her responsibility. She maintained this position in July 2023 when she reported the same driveway issues affecting her access to the property.
  5. The landlord explained on several occasions and in its stage 1 and 2 responses that it was not responsible for driveway repairs but was responsible for maintaining access paths to the doors. This advice remained the same for the historical events in 2016 and 2017 and in its response to the more recent events leading to the complaint. This was in accordance with its repairs and maintenance guide. It is appropriate for the landlord to apply its policy to such repair requests.
  6. If a resident is reporting a hazard or risk, the landlord must investigate it and establish whether a hazard exists, and assess whether it is its responsibility to repair it. In this case the driveway was clearly not the landlord’s responsibility. However, it inspected the property in September 2023 and January 2024 and concluded again the same (as in its previous historical responses). We have not seen any evidence of vulnerabilities reported or factors which may suggest that the landlord should have applied discretion in assessing its responsibilities. As such its response was reasonable.
  7. The landlord demonstrated that it had responded appropriately to the resident’s number of reports. However, on 20 July 2023, the landlord was unable to speak to the resident and this was not followed up. In the complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that further contact could have been made to discuss this with the resident. The landlord provided an apology for this shortfall, which was appropriate.
  8. The landlord inspected the property on 4 September 2023, 48 days after the previous repair request was made on 19 July 2023. Given the landlord previously already provided on a number of occasions advice that the repair to the driveway was not its responsibility and historical inspections had taken place, this short delay of 3 working days outside of its policy was not sufficient to amount to failure.
  9. While the resident’s repair requests were repeated reports of the same issue and the advice from the landlord was in line with its own policy, it further agreed to inspect the property during its stage 1 investigation. It was reasonable that the landlord considered additional inspection to ensure that the access to the property was free of hazards. Its internal correspondence and the actual inspection evidenced that it had appropriately considered any potential risk for the resident related to access. It offered to improve the pathways from the property to the driveway which was in line with its repairs obligations
  10. In summary, the landlord did not have responsibility to repair the driveway and was clear about this each time it communicated this to the resident. Furthermore, we have not seen evidence that the resident had reported any additional vulnerabilities where it may be expected of the landlord to consider applying discretion to its policy. As such, it appropriately managed her expectations and explained its repairs responsibilities.
  11. While there were minor delays in some of its responses to the reports it ensured that the issue was appropriately inspected and where identified it offered improvements in line with its responsibilities (to the pathways). This was reasonable and we have recommended that the landlord carries out those improvements completed if still outstanding. In taking a wider view of the landlord’s action in response to the resident’s request, its minor failures related to a short delay in inspecting the property in September 2023 (3 days) and a failure to follow up on a telephone call from July 2023 (appropriately acknowledged in its responses and apologised for) do not amount to maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. At any stage, if it needs further time it will agree it with the resident.
  2. The resident complained to the Service that the stage 2 response was sent in 36 days following her escalation request. The resident requested that their complaint was escalated on 17 January 2024 during a telephone call. The stage 2 formal response was sent on 14 February 2024. The response was sent in 20 working days and this met the landlord’s excepted timeframes in accordance with its complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code.
  3. The resident also stated to us that the landlord had not responded to her previous complaints. However, there is a difference between requesting a service and making a complaint. While we have seen evidence of the resident’s service requests and reports of hazards, we have not seen evidence of the issue being raised as a formal complaint prior to December 2023 when we raised it with the landlord. Therefore, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the driveway repair.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to arrange work to the pathway to be carried out.