City of Wolverhampton Council (202332042)

Background

1. The resident holds a tenancy with the landlord and lives in a flat on the 6th floor of a high-rise block. On 19 June 2023 he reported to the landlord 6 of the 8 lights on the 6th floor communalhallway had not been working for over a week. The following day the landlord advised the resident it completed the repair,however, the resident confirmed the lights were still not working. The landlord then explained to the resident the lightbulbs it required were out of stock. The landlord repaired the lights on 21 June 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the repair to the communal lighting.
3. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the communal lighting.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the formal complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the repair to the communal lighting.

5. The landlord acknowledged there was a failure in its communication in relation to the repair and apologised to the resident. An apology alone was insufficient to put things right given the extent of the landlord’s failings. The failure to provide appropriate redress leads to the determination of service failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord took too long to acknowledge the complaint at both stages of the complaint process. It apologised for its errors, which was a satisfactory resolution in relation to its complaint handling.

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.

What we have not looked at

7. The resident stated when he reported the lighting issue, the lights had already been out for over a week. However, the landlord’s daily fire safety check records dated 19 June 2023 and before, do not mention any lighting problems on the 6th floor. Based on the available evidence, we are unable to determine which party’s account is accurate.

What we have looked at

8. Our investigation has focussed on assessing how the landlord responded following the resident’s report of the repair, and whether it acted in accordance with its policies and procedures and acted fairly in the circumstances.
9. The resident reported the faulty lighting to the landlord on 19 June 2023. The landlord raised an emergency repair. The landlord’s decision to arrange attendance within 24 hours was reasonable given poor lighting in the area would pose a potential health and safety risk.
10. The evidence shows the landlord failed to provide the resident with accurate information about the repair. On 20 June 2023, it incorrectly informed him it had resolved the repair to the lights. After the resident told the landlord that was not the case, the landlord followed up with the relevant team. It explained to the resident it could not provide further details until it received feedback from the relevant department responsible for conducting the work. This was a reasonable interim response to the resident’s reports the problem was ongoing, until the landlord was able to provide further information.
11. The following day, the landlord confirmed there was a delay to fix the lighting due to lightbulbs being out of stock. It assured the resident it was working to resolve the issue. At that time, the landlord also offered an apology for the service delivered so far. Given the error in communication and the delay in fixing the issue, this was an appropriate action for the landlord to take.
12. The evidence shows the landlord completed the repair on 21 June 2023, which was within 3 days of the resident’s report. The landlord stated there was no health and safety risk, but it is unclear what evidence this assessment was based on. Given that the majority of lights were out, it is reasonable to assume the area was poorly lit as the resident had stated.
13. The evidence shows the landlord conducted an appropriate investigation into the resident’s concerns about the communication of the landlord’s staff. It reviewed transcripts of staff interactions with the resident. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, however, apologised for the negative experience the resident had when speaking with its staff.
14. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
15. When the resident referred the complaint to us, the landlord said it would offer the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its communication failure. Our guidance on outcomes is clear that increased offers of compensation made after the landlord’s complaints process will rarely meet the criteria to be assessed as amounting to a determination of reasonable redress. Referral to the Ombudsman should not be seen as an additional opportunity for the landlord to make an increased offer of compensation in the same circumstances.
16. We consider £50 compensation an appropriate amount of compensation which was proportionate to the level of failing by the landlord which our investigation has uncovered and is in line with what we would offer using our remedies guidance. However, the failure to provide appropriate redress as part of its complaints process was unreasonable. This will have led to a loss in confidence from the resident in the landlord’s complaints process and delayed resolution in the case. This failure leads to a determination of service failure by the landlord. We have awarded additional compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused.

17. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaints within 5 working days, as required by its complaints policy. This resulted in delays at both stages of its complaints procedure. However, at each stage, the landlord apologised for the delay and provided revised response dates, which it met.
18. In these circumstances, there was no significant detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. Our remedies guidance sets out that in some circumstances, an apology is an appropriate way for a landlord to resolve the complaint. We have determined an apology was a proportionate way for the landlord to satisfactorily resolve the complaint in this instance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord demonstrated detailed record keeping in relation to the resident’s repair report and its communication with the resident about the matter.

Communication

20. The landlord gave conflicting information to the resident regarding the status of the repair. It apologised for its error and sought to provide accurate information once in hand. The landlord should reflect on the matter and ensure good communication and passage of information between internal departments is in place in order to improve the service it delivers to its residents.