Walsall Housing Group Limited (202334609)

Background

1.The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord. In December 2022, she reported that sections of the rear garden fence had collapsed, leaving the property unsecured. The landlord attended promptly to inspect, but the repair was not completed until November 2023 following significant delays, which it attributed to material shortages.

What the complaint is about

2.The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
a. Reports of damaged fencing at the rear of the property.
b. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

    3.We found the landlord responsible for:

a. Maladministration in its response to reports of damaged fencing at the rear of the property.

b. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4.The landlord did not complete repairs to the resident’s rear fence within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. Although it acknowledged the delay and offered £75 compensation, this did not provide reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused by the prolonged wait for the works to be completed.

5. The landlord dealt with the complaint in line with its policy and procedures. Its responses were issued within the expected timeframes and appropriately signposted the resident to us.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The resident first reported that several fence panels at the rear of her property were damaged or missing on 14 December 2022. The landlord logged the repair as “routine” under the fencing category, which according to its repairs policy should be completed within 28 calendar days. Routine repairs are those that do not present immediate danger but require action within a reasonable timeframe to maintain the property’s condition and security.
7. The landlord inspected the property on 15 December 2022, one day after the report. This prompt attendance was appropriate and demonstrated a positive initial response. The inspection confirmed that approximately twelve fence panels were broken or missing and that several posts were leaning. The inspector assessed the issue as non-hazardous, meaning the classification as a routine repair was reasonable at that stage.
8. However, after this inspection, progress on the repair stalled. The next significant record appears on 20 March 2023, when the landlord finally raised a formal works order for contractor scheduling. This was more than three months after the original report, significantly exceeding the 28-day target. There is no evidence of any communication with the resident during this period to explain the delay or provide an update, which was contrary to the landlord’s own policy requirements.
9. Internal correspondence in April and May 2023 shows the landlord, and its contractors were experiencing a shortage of fencing panels. Emails from the maintenance team confirm that materials were unavailable until July 2023. While the cause of delay may have been outside of the landlord’s direct control, the landlord remained responsible for managing the situation effectively. This included keeping the resident informed, which it failed to do.

10. The evidence shows that the resident did not receive any substantive update until July 2023, when she contacted the landlord to chase progress. This was unsatisfactory. The landlord’s failure to proactively provide updates over several months likely caused frustration and uncertainty.

11. The repair was further delayed as the landlord awaited material delivery and contractor availability. A reinspection and remeasure were not completed until August 2023, with the contractor confirming that replacement panels were finally in stock at the end of that month. Works were then scheduled for September 2023, but records show completion did not occur until 20 November 2023, around 341 days after the initial report.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out clear expectations for timely completion, and its duties extend beyond simply allocating the work to contractors. As the responsible landlord, it must ensure there are effective systems in place to monitor repairs, chase outstanding works, and communicate realistic timescales to residents. The evidence suggests these systems were not effectively implemented in this case.
13. It is positive that once the complaint was raised, the landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised, and offered £50 compensation for the delay. However, this offer does not reasonably reflect the level of inconvenience and distress caused by the 11-month delay, during which the resident had to repeatedly chase for updates and lived with a damaged fence impacting her garden’s security and appearance.
14. In line with our remedies guidance, compensation between £100 and £600 is typically appropriate where service failure has caused distress and inconvenience without permanent impact. Given the extent and duration of the delay, and the time and trouble the resident expended pursuing the matter, an award at the lower-to-mid range of this band would be proportionate. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £150. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to put things right through a more suitable offer, and its redress was not proportionate to the failings identified.
15. For these reasons, we find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s fencing repair reports.

16. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. Under this procedure, complaints should be acknowledged within five working days, with a full response issued within ten working days at stage 1 and twenty working days at stage 2. These timescales align with our Complaint Handling Code.

17. The evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 23 November 2023 and issued a full response on 30 November 2023, within the required timeframe. The resident requested escalation on 6 December 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 December 2023, again within policy timescales. This demonstrates that the landlord handled the complaint efficiently and in accordance with its procedure.

18. The landlord’s responses clearly summarised the history of events, accepted responsibility for the delay, apologised, and offered £75 compensation in recognition of the delay and poor communication. It also explained the reason for the delay, and invited the resident to contact us if she remained dissatisfied.

19. While the compensation amount itself was not proportionate to the distress caused, the way the complaint was handled was fair, timely, and transparent. The landlord’s internal processes were followed correctly, and its communication was polite and procedural throughout.

20. We therefore find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Learning

Communication and Record Keeping

21. Our Spotlight on Repairs and Maintenance report highlights that service failures can often be prevented when landlords:
a. keep residents informed about expected timeframes for repairs and any unavoidable delays; and
b. maintain clear records showing how repair progress was monitored and when residents were updated.