Wigan Council (202231014)

Decision
Case ID	202231014
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Wigan Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	11 November 2025

Background

The resident lived in a house owned by the landlord. She asked the landlord to move her because she said she could not access all the rooms in the property due to her disability. The resident escalated her complaint about her rehousing request due to delays in securing a move. She also complained about various repairs and reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) while at the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Various repairs.
2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Rehousing.
4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to various repairs.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to ASB.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to rehousing.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord recognised its failures in:
1. Delayed repairs.
2. Complaint handling.
It put things right for her through its apology, action and offer of compensation.
The evidence suggests the landlord complied with its ASB policy and demonstrated a reasonable and proportionate response to the 1 reported incident of ASB.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
May 2023 to 17 July 2024	In May 2023 the resident raised a complaint to our Service regarding concerns about her living conditions. The landlord provided a Stage 1 response in mid-July 2024, stating: It sent a letter to her on 19 May 2023 requesting further details about the complaint. It said the resident did not respond. Due to ongoing legal protocols related to a disrepair claim, the landlord did not pursue the complaint at that time. Following our advice, the landlord logged a Stage 1 complaint and apologised to the resident for the delay in responding. Outstanding work: The landlord had attempted to contact the resident regarding outstanding repairs but received no response. It had arranged an inspection for 14 August 2024. Windows and door repairs: There was a 2-month delay in completing work on the windows. The windows were boarded on 10 March 2024, and 1 glazed unit in the living room was replaced in April 2024. The landlord was unable to gain access to complete the remaining work, causing further delays beyond the April target. Multiple access attempts were made between March and July 2024, with successful access gained on 18 July 2024, when the window was reglazed. Rehousing: The resident’s request to move was assessed on 9 April 2024. ASB: It had received 1 ASB incident from the resident reported in March 2024, which resulted in damage to a window. The landlord advised her to report any future incidents and provided contact details for doing so. A visit by a neighbourhood tenancy officer was scheduled for 17 July 2024, but access was not gained. A calling card with contact details was left at the property. Complaint: The landlord upheld the complaint due to the initial delays in repairing the window. It apologised for the delays and offered her £100 compensation.
9 September 2024	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said the current property did not meet her needs and felt “unsafe”. This was because she said she could not manage the house due to her disabilities. She said this had impacted her health as she had to stay in the bedroom on one level near the toilet.
October 2024 and November 2024	The landlord acknowledged the Stage 2 complaint, sent the resident 2 holding letters, and issued a formal response on 22 November 2024. In its response, the landlord: Reiterated its position. Encouraged the resident to fully engage with the support offered and to provide access to her home. Partly upheld the complaint, accepting there had been delays in handling her case and completing some repairs. Disrepair claims: A disrepair claim was settled on 27 July 2022, but access issues delayed completion of the works and final sign-off. The case was closed in December 2022. A second letter of claim was submitted on 31 May 2023, but the claim did not progress and was closed on 27 September 2023. Repairs and Inspections: Despite access issues, an inspection was carried out in June 2024, and the following works were completed: Resealing of windows. Repairs to the shower. Repairs to electrical sockets. Replacement of a light pendant. A further inspection was arranged for 14 August 2024, during which the following works were identified: Remove and refit leaking bath – cancelled on 9 September 2024 due to no access. Repair floorboards – not completed within target timeframe due to access issues. The surveyor asked the resident if she had concerns about any other repairs, none were reported. Another inspection was conducted on 7 November 2024, and the landlord agreed to carry out the following: Replace all windows except the kitchen window. Renew electrical socket and back box in the rear bedroom. Renew light pendant and light switch in the front bedroom. Replace necessary floorboards. Paint the kitchen. Renew kitchen flooring. Repair the bath. Fix the handle on the rear door. The landlord acknowledged that while some delays were due to its own handling of repairs, others were caused by lack of access to the property. Rehousing: The resident was approved for a management transfer, additional points were agreed in accordance with its choice-based lettings (CBL) policy and automatic bidding was set up for her through CBL. A bungalow was offered but declined by the resident as it was in the wrong area. The landlord confirmed it would continue efforts to find suitable alternative accommodation, which would need to be assessed by an occupational therapist (OT) to ensure it met the resident’s needs. Compensation: The landlord increased its compensation offer to £600, broken down as follows: £300 for delays in completing repairs. £300 for delays in complaint handling.
February 2025	The landlord confirmed that the resident had been rehoused, and her new tenancy began on 17 February 2025.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us for advice throughout the complaint. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. On 27 October 2025 as part of our investigation introductory process, we contacted the resident. She told us the landlord’s delayed action in resolving the issues caused significant distress to her. As a resolution to her complaint, she is seeking an apology and an increased level of compensation from the landlord.

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.

Complaint	Various repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord is obliged, in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from hazards at the start and throughout the tenancy.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs based on their urgency and commits to the following response times:
1. Emergency repairs – These include issues such as a total loss of power. The landlord aims to respond within 4 hours.
2. Priority repairs – These cover problems like a partial loss of essential facilities (for example – heating or water). The target response time is within 5 working days.
3. Routine repairs – These include non-urgent issues such as minor joinery work. The target response time is within 60 days.
The resident reported various outstanding work at her home resulting in a complaint and disrepair case. It appears the disrepair case was settled out of court, but work remained outstanding due to the landlord having difficulty gaining access to the property.
In mid-July 2024, the landlord responded at Stage 1 and informed her that an inspection had been scheduled for mid-August 2024 to assess outstanding repairs. It acknowledged a 2-month delay in completing window repairs. While it was unclear what other repairs remained outstanding at that time, the reglazing of a window had been delayed by approximately 4 months, partly due to difficulties gaining access—despite landlord attempts made in March and July 2024. To address the situation, the landlord apologised, offered £100 compensation, and committed to inspecting the property. We consider the landlord’s attempts to put things right for her at this stage were reasonable.
The resident escalated her complaint in September 2024. The landlord responded at stage 2 (November 2024) and told her it had inspected the property in June 2024, and additional work was completed to the electrical sockets, a light pendant, and the shower. It conducted a further inspection in mid-August 2024. The landlord confirmed that all work that was part of the disrepair claim was completed in mid-August 2024. Further work was identified to remove and refit a leaking bath, however, the work had to be cancelled in September 2024 due to no access. It also identified work to repair floorboards but there were access issues meaning the work was not completed within the repair target timeframe. The resident had told the landlord there were no other issues of concern. The landlord recognised the delays and while there were mitigating circumstances relating to access to the property it offered her £300 compensation in recognition of the delayed work. We consider the landlord’s attempts to resolve the matters and put things right for the resident to be reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord conducted another inspection of the property in early November 2024 in which it agreed to replace the windows, carry out various electrical work, replacement of floorboards, renewal of kitchen flooring, joinery works and repaint the kitchen. It is unclear from the evidence whether all or part of this work formed the basis of the original complaint or whether new items of repair were identified after the landlord’s complaints process had ended. The landlord recognised some delays in completing all of the work, however, it attributed part of the delay to access issues.
Overall, although it is accepted that the landlord had difficulties gaining access to the property, there is insufficient evidence to show how far the landlord went to resolve this. For example, it is unclear whether it:
1. Pre-arranged appointments.
2. Attempted unannounced visits and left calling cards.
3. Followed up with letters when there was no response.
4. Took into account the resident’s individual circumstances—such as her report that she was living in her bedroom and had difficulty using the stairs which would have slowed her down getting to the door.
Due to the lack of records, it is difficult to determine whether this was a record-keeping failure or a failure to consider the resident’s individual needs and make reasonable adjustments to gain access. Either way, this was inappropriate.
In conclusion, overall, the landlord conducted 3 inspections of the property, recognised its delays in completing some work such as to the windows and attempted to complete the rest of the work. While we do not know how far it went to gain reasonable access to the property, we are satisfied the landlord put things right for the resident in its apology and offer of £300 compensation. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance for failures causing adverse impact on the resident. For these reasons, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of various repairs.

Complaint	Antisocial behaviour (ASB)
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s ASB resolution model attempts to resolve incidents of ASB. It is based on a 4-step approach:
1. Self-help/advice
2. Enhanced triage.
3. Investigation and informal resolution.
4. Enforcement.
It states that it will consider conducting a risk assessment on a case-by-case basis, and where the following situations apply:
1. Verbal abuse and threatening behaviour.
2. Violent behaviour.
3. Criminal behaviour including drugs/dealing drugs.
4. Hate crime.
Its ASB resolution model provides guidance on what action to take depending on the risk assessment score. For example, where there is a high score (28 to 41) it commits to refer the matter to the police and agree an immediate action plan.
Within the landlord’s complaint responses of July 2024 and November 2024 it confirmed that it had 1 report of a break in at the property in March 2024. It had arranged a visit to the resident’s home for July 2024 after it received her complaint, however, there was no access and so it left a calling card on how to make contact. It confirmed it did not have a current ASB case open.
It is difficult to assess the landlord’s actions based on this individual report of ASB (March 2024) due to the limited evidence of ASB. While there is no doubt this reported incident was distressing for the resident, when she raised her complaint (July 2024) the landlord took proactive steps in its attempts to visit the resident to discuss this incident. The landlord left the resident with details on how she could make contact and reiterated that she must report any future incidents in its follow up letter. For these reasons, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to ASB reports.

Complaint	Rehousing
Finding	No maladministration

We do not investigate issues about housing allocations under this aspect of a local authority’s statutory duties. This is because local authorities are responsible for operating allocation schemes. Any concerns about such allocations fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Therefore, we will not investigate the allocation process carried out under the local authority’s choice-based lettings (CBL) scheme. However, its management transfer procedure falls outside the scope of the allocations policy and therefore we will investigate that aspect of the complaint.
The landlord’s allocations policy allows it to transfer resident’s through a management transfer direct let. This operates outside the standard allocations policy and is used in specific circumstances, such as when an applicant has medical or welfare needs, or requires an adapted property. In cases where adaptations are required it is normal practice for an occupational therapist (OT) to assess the resident’s needs and suitability of any new home.
The resident uses a wheelchair due to a physical disability. In or around June 2021, she informed the landlord that the property was unsuitable for her needs and applied to transfer to more appropriate accommodation. The landlord responded by placing her in Priority B under its allocations policy, acknowledging her housing needs. However, due to rent arrears at the time, her points were reduced in line with that policy. As this earlier transfer application was handled under the landlord’s allocations policy, it falls outside the scope of our assessment.
In January 2023, there is evidence that the landlord agreed to award the resident an additional 500 points for a direct transfer to help her downsize. However, there is a gap in the transfer records until 9 April 2024, when the landlord reassessed her request to move. In later correspondence, the landlord confirmed that it had awarded her further priority due to ASB concerns and the property’s unsuitability on medical grounds. This aligns with the resident’s reports of a break-in at her home. We consider the landlord’s response to her changing circumstances to be appropriate. It also appointed an officer to oversee her transfer request and provided support with bidding for suitable properties. These actions show the landlord recognised her vulnerabilities and offered additional assistance. Overall, the landlord’s response was reasonable and proportionate.
In November 2024, when the landlord responded at stage 2 of the complaints process, it confirmed that the resident had been approved for a management transfer and that additional points had been awarded to her application. The landlord had already offered her a suitable property, but she declined it because it was in the wrong area. The landlord committed to continuing its efforts to find a more suitable property. However, it also explained that any future property would need to be assessed by an OT to ensure it met the resident’s needs. She was offered an alternative level access accommodation which she accepted in February 2025.
In conclusion, the evidence indicates that the landlord acted in line with its management transfer policy. It acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities, awarded additional points to improve her chances of securing a suitable property, and supported her throughout the application process. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably, and we have found no evidence of maladministration

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlord’s must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident raised a complaint in May 2023. The landlord contacted the resident the same month but stated she did not respond. The landlord did not follow up with the resident on the complaint. It was not until July 2024 that the resident raised the complaint with our Service stating the landlord had not responded. The landlord did not respond at stage 1 until 17 July 2024. While the landlord made an attempt to follow up with the resident it could have done more such as follow up with a letter before closing the complaint. The landlord’s inaction was inappropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint on 9 September 2024. It is unclear if the landlord acknowledged the complaint , however it sent 2 holding letters (October 2024 and November 2024) and issued its stage 2 response on 22 November 2022. While the landlord could not meet its 20-working day response, it did comply with the Code by sending holding letters to the resident, keeping her informed of its delayed response. The landlord’s actions were therefore appropriate.
Overall, the landlord acknowledged its failures in complaint handling, apologised and offered her £300 compensation. This amount of compensation is at the higher end of what we consider to be appropriate for complaint handling failures. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Communication

The landlord must ensure it takes into account each resident’s individual needs regarding access and communication and make reasonable adjustments where necessary. For guidance on best practice, the landlord should refer to our Spotlight Report: Repair and Maintenance – Repairing Trust (May 2025).