City of Wolverhampton Council (202430978)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430978

Wolverhampton City Council

8 October 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. Repairs to the kitchen wall and pest control expenses incurred by the resident.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom house.
  2. During 2022, the resident reported various kitchen repairs and the landlord confirmed that the kitchen had been placed on its 2023-24 replacement programme.
  3. On 17 January 2023 the resident reported 3 large holes behind the kitchen cabinets. She said that these holes created a draught and allowed vermin to enter. On 10 February 2023, the landlord inspected the property and found no evidence of vermin, according to its complaint response.
  4. The resident reported the holes again, and on 15 June 2023 the landlord explained that it would carry out the repairs during the kitchen installation. The installation began on 14 March 2024.
  5. On 2 July 2024, the resident submitted a formal complaint. She stated that the delay in repairing the holes led to a vermin infestation and forced her to pay for pest control.
  6. On 8 August 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It explained that earlier inspections had found no evidence of vermin. During the kitchen installation, however, the contractor discovered 3holes and hit and miss vents that the resident had installed. The contractor filled the holes with expanding foam and plaster but did not inform the resident. The landlord apologised and offered £50 compensation for its communication failure. It rejected the resident’s request for pest control reimbursement and advised her to contact environmental health.
  7. On 12 August 2024, the resident requested escalation of her complaint. She stated that the £50 compensation offer did not reflect the significant costs she had incurred. She also explained that she had identified the root cause of the issue two years earlier and there were  large gaps and multiple entry points for vermin.
  8. On 9 October 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged delays in repairing the holes and admitted that this may have contributed to the infestation. It offered an additional £150 compensation for the inconvenience and as a contribution toward the resident’s expenses.
  9. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. She referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. She explained that the delays caused her stress, left her without a working kitchen for a long period, and forced her to rely on takeaway meals. She said the contractor ignored her calls and left the scratched floor unrepaired. She also reported that the situation aggravated her daughter’s severe eczema.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident reported holes in brickwork on 28 February 2022 and she submitted the complaint on 2 July 2024. 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 January 2023 that were considered in the landlord’s final response. Residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords 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.
  2. The resident raised concerns about the kitchen installation, lack of temporary cooking facilities and a scratched floor. However we have not seen any evidence that these concerns were escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. Any issues that have not fully gone through the complaint process will not be considered as part of this investigation. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the subsequent issues, she can raise a new formal complaint with the landlord.
  3. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident raised concerns about how the issues and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her and her daughter’s health. We do not have the expertise to assess medical evidence or conclude that there was a direct causal link between the condition of the property and any detriment to the family’s heath. Such claims are more appropriately decided through an insurance claim or by a court. We have, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

Repairs to the kitchen wall and pest control expenses incurred by the resident

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property, and must carry out routine repairs and all repairs covered by repair legislation within prescribed timescales. The tenancy agreement states that the resident must take steps to eradicate any pest or vermin infestation within the property.
  2. On 17 January 2023, the resident reported a draught in the kitchen caused by 3 large holes. She stated that the vents were uncovered, allowing vermin to enter. In its complaint response, the landlord stated that it inspected the property on 10 February 2023 and found no evidence of vermin. This inspection took place 18 working days after the initial report. The landlord remained responsible for repairing the holes even if there was no evidence of vermin. As we have seen no evidence of repairs following the initial report, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord did not carry out any repairs at that time.
  3. On 15 June 2023, the landlord responded to a further repair request from the resident. It advised her that, since she was due a new kitchen, it would repair the wall at the same time. The landlord subsequently repaired the holes in March 2024. This was 14 months after the resident reported the matter and significantly exceeded the expected timeframe for routine repairs, which is 20 working days.
  4. At stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord upheld the complaint and acknowledged that it failed to repair the holes in a timely manner, which may have contributed to the vermin issue. This was appropriate given the long delay in repairing the holes. Although the landlord did go some way to putting things right by apologising and offering £200 in compensation, this did not go far enough considering the length of the delay and impact on the resident. Furthermore, it failed to demonstrate that it had learned from the complaint or made improvements to its services.
  5. While delaying the repair until the kitchen replacement may have been reasonable if these works were imminent, the replacement had no confirmed dates and depended on availability and budget. From January 2023 to March 2024, the landlord knew a repair was needed but failed to act. Given the uncertainty around the kitchen refit, the landlord should have treated the repair as a routine issue and completed it within 20 working days.
  6. It is also concerning that the landlord changed its position after issuing its stage 2 response. During June 2025 it told us that repairs were not required as there was no defect present and the holes reported by the resident related to ventilation air bricks. It said that these air bricks formed part of the original construction and did not permit the transit of vermin. However, this position is not supported by the available evidence which shows that during July 2023 the landlord recorded in its repair log that two hit and miss vents needed fitting (hence indicating that they were missing). The landlord also confirmed in its complaint response that the contractor had identified 3 holes during the kitchen replacement works and filled these with expanding foam. The complaints process should have ensured a thorough investigation was carried out and a sound decision reached on the complaint at that time, and there is nothing to suggest that the landlord reached an incorrect decision at stage 2.
  7. Although the tenancy agreement states that pest control is the resident’s responsibility, it would be unreasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to cover the costs if pests entered due to its failure to repair.
  8. The landlord stated that the additional £150 compensation offered at stage 2 was intended to address the inconvenience and contribute toward the resident’s expenses. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it gave full and proper consideration to the costs that the resident says she incurred. The resident submitted receipts totalling at least £210 but the landlord did not explain why it would not reimburse the full amount claimed for and this was a failing given that the resident was clearly seeking full reimbursement as an outcome to her complaint.
  9. In summary, the landlord’s failings were significant as it delayed repairs for an extended period despite being responsible for them. Although the landlord made some attempts to put things right, this did not go far enough and we have therefore made a finding of maladministration. We order the landlord to pay a total of £500 in compensation. This replaces the landlord’s earlier offer of £200 and is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failure which amounted to maladministration and had an adverse impact on the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to review its handling of the repairs and take steps to ensure the same failures do not happen again.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a two stage process. At stage 1, it must respond within 10 working days, and at stage 2, within 20 working days. It must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and, if it requires more time at any stage, it must agree this with the resident.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, submitted on 2 July 2024, on 8 August 2024. This was 26 working days later. This exceeded the policy’s 10 working day target and was a significant delay. The landlord should have updated the resident about the delay and addressed it in the complaint response but no evidence has been provided to show that it did so.
  3. The landlord failed to address all concerns raised at stage 1, including issues with the kitchen installation, the lack of temporary cooking facilities, and a scratched floor. It should have responded to all concerns in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code requires landlords to address all points defined in the complaint and to provide clear reasons for their decisions. We have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to confirm whether she still wishes to pursue these matters and, if so, to log a new complaint.
  4. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint within 5 working days of the resident requesting escalation on 12 August 2024,. The landlord issued its response on 9 October 2024, this was 41 working days later and more than double the 20 working day target. During this period, the head of service reviewed the compensation offer, but this review fell outside the complaints process and should not have contributed to the delay.
  5. The landlord’s complaint handling failings were significant. It did not address all the concerns raised and significantly delayed its responses at both stages. Furthermore, it failed to provide updates about those delays, and failed to acknowledge and rectify its complaint handling failures. As such it did not demonstrate any learning from its complaint handling failures. Given the extent of the failings, this amounts to maladministration. To put things right we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident and to review its complaint handling in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen wall.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £600. This amount is comprised of:
      1. £200 compensation (if not paid already) offered during its complaints process.
      2. Additional £300 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs and the resident’s request for reimbursement of pest control costs.
      3. £100 compensation for the complaint handling failures.
    3. Contact the resident to check if she still wishes to complain about the matters raised in her initial complaint and if so, log a new complaint.
  2. Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report and complete a case review into its handling of the repairs and complaint to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again. The landlord should provide the outcome of the review to the Ombudsman and the review should have a particular focus on:
    1. How it responded to the repair.
    2. How it responded to the formal complaints.
    3. What steps it should take to improve its services in relation to the above.
  3. Contact the Ombudsman and provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within their respective timeframes.