City of Wolverhampton Council (202423052)

Decision
Case ID	202423052
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Wolverhampton City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	24 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom terrace house, with her daughter who has dyspraxia (a coordination disability). The resident has a representative acting for her. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to both the resident and the representative as “the resident”.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to a report of uneven paving stones.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to a report of uneven paving stones.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to a report of uneven paving stones

The landlord did not engage with the resident’s concern that the paving was necessary for her daughter to safely access outdoor space. It did not signpost the resident to obtain an occupational therapy (OT) assessment. It has not evidenced it properly considered the daughter’s disability in its response to the resident and the application of its repairs policy.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not address all issues raised by the resident in its complaint responses.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 21 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250. This comprises: £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s response to a report of uneven paving stones. £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord can deduct from this amount any compensation paid at stage 1 or stage 2.	No later than 21 November 2025
3	Works order The landlord should write to the resident and the Ombudsman with its decision on the resident’s repair request. As part of that communication, the landlord should set out how it considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010 in reaching its decision.	No later than 21 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 March 2024	The resident reported uneven paving slabs in her back garden. She sent photos and asked if she was responsible for the paving.
11 April 2024	The resident said the landlord visited on this date and told her it would complete works within 90 days.
4 June 2024	The resident said contractors visited on this date, measured the patio area and asked her to move her shed from the patio.
3 September 2024	The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her reports of uneven paving stones. The resident said she was told the works would be done on 14 July 2024. She said she contacted the landlord multiple times but heard nothing further and it did not attend the appointment. The resident said contractors arrived without notice on 3 September 2024. She said the contractors told her only half the paving stones would be replaced, and topsoil would be put on the remaining area. The resident said the landlord had not communicated the scope of the works. She said the patio was there when she moved into the property and she did not agree to half of it being removed.
9 September 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
20 September 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said during the approval process it realised the works did not meet its “repair standard”. The landlord said its repairs policy said it would maintain paving from the highway to the front and rear doors. It said the patio area was not covered by its repairs policy and was not its responsibility to maintain. The landlord apologised for not explaining this before contractors visited on 4 September 2024. It apologised for this communication failure and for the repair delays and awarded £100 compensation. The landlord offered to remove the paving laid by the previous tenant and to lay turf. It said this meant the resident would not have to pay for the removal of the stones if she wanted to ask permission to install new paving.
25 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she was not aware part of the patio was her responsibility when she signed the tenancy agreement. The resident questioned why the landlord had replaced a neighbour’s patio but refused her request. She said the landlord had ignored her concerns that the patio was unsafe for her daughter who was disabled.
30 September 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
25 October 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said the works to the neighbours property were done because the paving was originally used for shared access with another property. The landlord confirmed its findings at stage 1. It said because the resident had raised safety concerns it would inspect the paving from the highway to the back door. The landlord said after the inspection it would share its findings with the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and wanted all the paving replaced. The resident said she wants to be compensated for the duration of the repair and the distress it caused.

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	Response to a report of uneven paving stones
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident said when she moved to the property the landlord did not tell her she was responsible for some of the paving stones. We usually investigate the 12-month period before a resident makes a complaint to the landlord. The resident moved to the property in 2008, and we are unable to investigate events dating back to this time.

What we did investigate

The resident told us she believed the landlord was in breach of the Equality Act 2010. She did not complain to the landlord about this, and the landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate this specifically. We cannot assess if the landlord breached the Equality Act, but we can consider whether it has considered its duties under it, for example, in the application of its repairs policy.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will maintain paving from the highway to each main door to the property. It says paving slabs are a ‘routine repair’, and it will inspect, and schedule works within 20 working days of receiving a report. After the resident reported uneven paving in April 2024 the landlord visited within this timeframe.
The resident said the landlord told her it would complete works on 4 July 2024. The landlord has not provided records from the visit. There is no evidence the landlord explained what part of the paving it was responsible for.
The resident chased the landlord about the repair. She said contractors visited on 6 June 2024 and asked her to move the shed. The landlord has not provided records from the visit.
The repairs policy says the landlord will agree appointment timeslots. Contractors arrived at the resident’s property on 3 September 2024. The landlord had not contacted the resident to arrange an appointment, and the resident did not know they were coming.
After the resident complained to the landlord, it explained it was only responsible for some of the paving stones. The resident then sent further information to the landlord. This included information about her daughter’s disability. The resident said all the paving stones needed to be repaired or replaced so her daughter could access outdoor space.
In its final complaint response, the landlord explained why it laid more paving at a neighbour’s property. It restated its repair responsibilities and its offer to remove some paving stones and replace them with topsoil. This offer exceeded the requirements of its repairs policy.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for communication failings and repairs delays. It did not, however, address the resident’s concerns arising from her daughter’s disability. The resident said she believed all paving should be replaced because her daughter needed it to safely access the outdoor space. Although the landlord was not obligated to signpost the resident to a possible occupational therapy (OT) referral, given the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect it to have done so.
The landlord said it would inspect the paving for which it was responsible. The landlord has not evidenced it properly considered the daughter’s disability in this response, or in the application of its repairs policy. This caused the resident and her daughter distress and inconvenience.
As a result of the observations set out above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to a report of uneven paving stones.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets the timeframes for the landlord to acknowledge a complaint and send a response at stage 1 and stage 2. The Code requires the landlord to address all the issues raised by a resident in its complaint response.
The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement and response within the required timeframe. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 3 days after the required response time. This was a minor failing and did not materially affect the resolution of the resident’s complaint.
The resident said when she moved into the property the landlord did not tell her some of the paving stones were laid by the previous tenant. The resident said the landlord failed to explain this meant she was responsible part of the paving.
The landlord did not address this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It should either have addressed the issue or explained why it was unable to do so. Because it did neither, the resident felt her complaint was not fully investigated.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not provide records of the contractors’ visits to the resident’s property. This indicates a recordkeeping failure.

Communication

The landlord took too long to communicate with the resident about its handling of the repair.