City of Wolverhampton Council (202210090)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210090

Wolverhampton City Council

20 January 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 repairs to the resident’s property including the front door, the back door, electrical sockets, kitchen cupboards, structural works undertaken by a previous tenant, no air vents, rotten floorboards, rotten felt roofs on outhouses and a bay window, damaged plasterwork, and uneven paving slabs in the back garden.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The resident moved to her property via a mutual exchange scheme.
  2. On 23 September 2021, the landlord carried out a mutual exchange inspection of the property. The inspection noted no issues of concern in relation to the property condition and the landlord provided photographs to support this.
  3. The landlord’s repair records state that on 28 January 2022, the resident reported that the seals round the front door and the back door of the property had come off. The landlord’s records state that it completed repairs to the back door the same day.
  4. On 4 February 2022, the resident reported that the worktops and the kitchen cupboards were old and damaged, and some kitchen cupboards were missing. She also reported that the flat roof on the outhouse was leaking. On 5 February 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there were large patches of loose plaster on the ceilings and walls and there were big holes in the plaster on the landing and stairs. The landlord’s repair records show that it completed repairs to the front door on 10 February 2022.
  5. The resident reported on 18 February 2022 that the electrical sockets in the living room were coming away from the wall. The landlord’s repair records state that it repaired the sockets the same day and also carried out repairs to the front door. The landlord’s records state that it completed repairs to the outhouse roof on 1 March 2022. On 12 April 2022, the resident reported that the floorboards in 2 of the bedrooms were split and had large gaps between them and were a trip hazard. She also reported that the tread on the first step on the stairs had gone through.
  6. On 19 April 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She said the front door was incorrectly attached, the back door did not lock, 4 electrical sockets were not connected to the walls and 1 was faulty. The previous tenant had moved the kitchen cupboards around and these were now in the incorrect place and had water damage. The kitchen work surfaces were damaged, and the kitchen kickboards were not properly attached. The cooker was not enclosed and there was no plug socket for the fridge. A doorway between the living room and dining room installed by the previous tenant, had no lintel above it. Most of the doors in the property were damaged. None of the rooms had air vents. Floorboards were rotten and supports to these were missing, the ceilings in 2 of the bedrooms and the kitchen were bowing. The entire property needed replastering. The felt roofs on the outhouses and the bay window were rotten. There was no slabbing in the back garden. She said the property was unsafe for her young child as there were splinters, loose floorboards and plaster.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 26 April 2022. It said it would contact her to discuss her concerns.
  8. Between 28 June 2022 and 12 August 2022, both the resident and a representative from Citizen’s Advice chased the landlord for updates on the repairs the resident had reported.
  9. On 18 August 2022, the resident submitted a claim for compensation to the landlord. She listed the following repairs on the claim: rotten floorboards and missing supports, rotten felt on 2 outhouses and a bay window, bowing ceilings in the kitchen and 2 of the bedrooms, unsafe structural work carried out by the previous tenant and the need for the whole property to be replastered. She said she had now been waiting 8 months for the landlord to carry-out the repairs. The landlord contacted the resident the same day and said it would respond to her claim within 40 working days.
  10. The landlord has said that on 30 August 2022, it replaced floorboards, repaired the broken step on the stairs and replastered the living room, the hallway, and the front bedroom and kitchen ceilings.
  11. On 26 September 2022, the resident moved to temporary accommodation whilst the landlord carried out repairs to her property. The resident moved back to her property on 13 November 2022.
  12. On 28 November 2022, an independent surveyor completed an inspection of the property. The surveyor drew up a Scott Schedule (a survey used in disrepair claims), dated 20 December 2022. The Scott Schedule found that there was adequate ventilation in all the rooms in the property. It recommended however, that the landlord install an air vent to the chimney breast in the rear bedroom, unblock a vent in the hallway service cupboard and renew the vacuum seal between the windowpanes in the storeroom. The Scott Schedule found the floorboards in the property to be in a good condition but recommended that the landlord secure a floorboard on the first-floor landing. The Scott Schedule found the felt roofs on the outhouses and the bay window to be in a satisfactory condition and not in need of repair. The Schedule found the ceilings and plasterwork in the property to be in a good condition and the property to be structurally sound.
  13. The landlord contacted the resident on 6 April 2023. It did not accept any liability for disrepair. It said that in signing the agreement to accept the mutual exchange, the resident became responsible for any installations or alterations made by the previous tenant. It was not liable for the condition of the kitchen units, therefore. It had however, carried out repairs including the blocking up of the doorway between the dining and living rooms. It said it would undertake the work recommended in the Scott Schedule within a reasonable period of time. It said there had been a delay of 6 weeks in it repairing the floorboards and repairing the stairs. It offered the resident compensation of £133.87 for this delay. It said there had been a delay of 7 weeks in it completing the replastering of the resident’s property. It offered her compensation of £156.18 for this delay. It is unclear how the landlord calculated these offers however it appears these may be based on 20% of rent for the number of weeks the works were outside of its target completion date. The landlord offered the resident a total of £350 compensation as a goodwill gesture. On 13 April 2023, the resident told the landlord she would not accept this offer. On 20 April 2023, the landlord told the resident it would consider her comments and would get back to her shortly.
  14. On 10 August 2023, the resident complained to the Ombudsman. She said she had asked the landlord to provide a full list of the repairs its contractors had carried out to her property, including the dates they had completed these, however it had not provided this. On 15 September 2023, she contacted the service again and said that the landlord was not answering any of her calls or emails and she had not had any contact from it since she had refused its offer of compensation. On the 20 September 2023, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to issue the resident with a stage 1 complaint response. The landlord did so on 26 September 2023. It said it did not accept any liability for disrepair and its goodwill gesture of £350 still stood.
  15. On 26 September 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. She said the replastering, and the repairs to the floorboards and the stairs had been carried out after she had moved to temporary accommodation. She said the landlord should have responded to her claim for compensation within 40 working days, however it had not done so.
  16. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2023. It reiterated that it did not accept any liability for the repairs the resident had reported. It said that had her claim reached its legal services department in August 2022, its response would have been the same, as the repairs to her property had started by that time. However, it had received her claim on 14 November 2022, and it had arranged an inspection of her property within the 20 working days set out by the pre-action protocol for disrepair claims.
  17. On 20 November 2023, the resident complained to the Ombudsman. She advised the date the landlord said the repairs to her property were completed was wrong, and therefore it had not awarded her sufficient compensation. She wanted the landlord to compensate her to reflect the delays and for the fact that she had to move to temporary accommodation whilst the repairs were completed.
  18. The resident told the Service on 18 December 2024 that the previous tenant removed some decking from the garden prior to moving out, revealing uneven slabs which she felt were unsafe as she has a small child. She said the landlord had not provided a response to this concern and has not carried out any work to remedy it. The landlord installed a vent to her bedroom around the summer of 2024 but had not carried out any of the other recommendations in the Scott Schedule.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. Although the landlord made the decision to handle the resident’s complaint as a legal disrepair claim, there is no evidence that the claim has progressed to court. The Ombudsman can investigate disrepair claims which are still at the pre-action stage, before court action is scheduled. Therefore, the repairs set out in the claim are within the scope of this assessment.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s mutual exchange process states that it will complete an inspection prior to the outgoing tenant leaving the property. The process states that the landlord will not repair or replace any damaged/missing fixtures and fittings, or nonstandard items identified during the inspection. The process states that the exchange of properties will not proceed until both parties are happy with the condition of the property they are moving to.
  2. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord has a responsibility to maintain the structure and exterior of the property.
  3. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that the landlord will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. The policy states that it aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
  4. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. Its complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints, within 20 working days. If the landlord needs longer to investigate the complaint, its policy states that any extension of time will not exceed 10 working days at stage 1 and will not exceed 20 working days at stage 2.
  5. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code), published on our website, sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. A mutual exchange is not a new tenancy, but a means by which a resident takes on the tenancy of another tenant they wish to exchange properties with. This means that the incoming resident takes up occupation of the property ‘as is’. The landlord does not need to carry out void checks, which would usually be carried out on an empty property between tenancies, and the property may not be to the same standard of repair as a property which had gone through the landlord’s voids process.
  2. The landlord acted in line with its mutual exchange process in carrying out an inspection on 23 September 2021 with the outgoing tenant. Its records and photographs of the inspection confirm it did not identify any repairs or issues of concern at that time. The resident has told the Service that the landlord told her it would carry-out a further inspection of the property prior to her moving in. The Service does not doubt the resident’s testimony but as we were not privy to the conversation, and have seen no documented evidence to suggest this, it cannot be confirmed. As explained above, the landlord was not required to carry out a further inspection.
  3. In signing to accept the transfer of the tenancy into her name, the resident was accepting the condition of the property ‘as was’. The landlord was not responsible for repairing the damaged kitchen units installed by the previous tenant, therefore. Nor was it responsible for putting back the wall between the dining and living rooms. However, it took a practical approach in agreeing to a complete replacement of the kitchen and blocking up the doorway between the dining room and the living room. The landlord has also replaced the bathroom.
  4. The photos accompanying the landlord’s inspection of 23 September 2021, show that the property was carpeted in the main, with wallpaper on most of the walls. The landlord would not have been aware of any damage to the plasterwork or the floorboards therefore, as this would have been hidden. The resident has told the Service that she stripped off the wallpaper and removed carpets after she moved in, in order to decorate the property. Once the resident reported the large patches of loose plaster and holes in the plasterwork and the damage to the floorboards, these issues became the landlord’s responsibility to repair. This is because under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure of the property which includes large areas of damaged plasterwork and damage to floorboards.
  5. As noted above, on 5 February 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there were large areas of damaged plasterwork in the property. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. The landlord said that it completed the replastering of the property on 30 August 2022, however the resident has disputed this. Where there is a disputed version of events without evidence to support either account, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine what did or did not happen. The Service has asked the landlord to provide evidence that these works were completed on 30 August 2022, and it has not been able to do so. In any event, the repairs were not completed until at least 6 months outside the landlord’s timescales for completing routine repairs. This was an unreasonable delay which will have likely caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  6. On 12 April 2022, the resident reported that the floorboards and a tread on the stairs needed repairing. She said that the floorboards were a trip hazard. The landlord should have inspected these issues within its timescales for attending to emergency repairs of 24 hours, to assess whether these issues were a safety risk to the resident and her family. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to show that it did so. Had the landlord assessed the floorboards and the stair tread and found that these issues were not a safety risk, it should have carried out repairs within its timescales for completing routine repairs. The landlord states that it completed repairs to the floorboards on 30 August 2022. Again, the resident has disputed this. In any event, the repairs were not completed until at least 4 and a half months outside of the landlord’s timescales for completing routine repairs, of 20 working days. This was an unreasonable delay.
  7. Given that there is a dispute between the landlord and the resident in relation to the dates these repairs were completed, it is recommended that the landlord considers asking its operatives/contractors to provide timestamped photographs so that it can provide proof of the date repairs were completed when required to do so by the Ombudsman. It is accepted that the Scott Schedule provided photos showing that the property was newly replastered, however this survey did not take place until 28 November 2022, 3 months after the landlord said it had repaired the plasterwork. Landlords are expected to provide evidence that they have fulfilled their repair responsibilities. In the absence of evidence, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that repairs were completed, particularly if the resident disputes this.
  8. The landlord acted appropriately in repairing the front and back doors and the electrical sockets either the same day or within its timescales for completing routine repairs of 20 working days.
  9. In her complaint of 19 April 2022, the resident told the landlord that there was no lintel over the doorway between the living room and the dining room installed by the previous tenant. It is acknowledged that the Scott Schedule found the property to be structurally sound. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond to this specific issue as a matter of priority to check if the property was structurally safe and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that it did so. It is accepted that it may not have been possible for it to respond within its timescales for assessing emergency repairs of 24 hours as the resident had not reported this issue as a repair but raised it in a complaint and there are different timescales for acknowledging and responding to complaints and repairs. It is recommended therefore that the landlord check all complaints it receives to see if they contain any issues that may warrant an urgent inspection or emergency repairs.
  10. The landlord confirmed on 6 April 2023 that it would carry out the recommendations in the Scott Schedule. Having agreed to these works, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure it carried these out within its timescales for completing routine repairs of 20 working days. The resident has told the Service that the landlord installed a vent in her bedroom in the summer of 2024, but the other works have not been carried out. The fact that these issues are still outstanding over a year after the landlord confirmed to the resident it would carry out these repairs is a failing. The landlord is ordered to carry out repairs to the air vent in the hallway cupboard, renew the vacuum seal between the windowpanes in the storeroom and secure a floorboard on the first-floor landing, as recommended in the Scott Schedule.
  11. The Scott Schedule found that the felt on the outhouses and on the roof of the bay window was in a satisfactory condition. The landlord was entitled to rely on the surveyor’s professional opinion, and it was reasonable therefore that it took no further action in relation to these issues.
  12. The resident has told the Service that she is seeking compensation for the time she spent in temporary accommodation from 26 September 2022 to13 November 2022. Whilst moving out of her home will undoubtedly have caused the resident inconvenience, the landlord was under no obligation to compensate her for the period of time she was in temporary accommodation. This is because, it is reasonable for landlords to temporarily move residents whilst completing major repairs. This does not represent a failure in the landlord’s service. The landlord is only expected to compensate residents for financial losses, distress and/or inconvenience caused by its failures.
  13. The landlord offered the resident £350 compensation for the delays in completing the replastering to her property and in repairing the floorboards and tread to the stairs. It is understandable that the resident was disappointed with this offer, particularly as the landlord’s stated delays of 6-7 weeks were incorrect. However, the Ombudsman would normally only propose compensation based on rent where there is evidence that part or all of the property was uninhabitable at any stage, and the Service has not seen any evidence to show that this was the case.A property or room is considered uninhabitable if it is not safe to use or if the property lacks basic facilities for washing and sleeping. Therefore, we will not order additional compensation in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
  14. However, when assessing compensation, we have considered the overall distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to errors by the landlord throughout the entire period from when the repairs were first reported. As noted above, the landlord has not provided evidence that it has carried out all the repairs recommended in the Scott Schedule, which is a failing. Where service failure has been identified and issues have not been fully put right, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, states that £50-£100 compensation should be considered. The landlord should pay the resident a further £100 compensation in addition to the £350 it previously offered the resident through its complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 19 April 2022. On 26 April 2022, the landlord acknowledged receipt of this complaint. It said it would contact the resident to discuss the issues she had raised. In accordance with its complaints policy set out above, the landlord should have responded to this complaint within 10 working days. The landlord did not issue a formal response to the resident until 6 April 2023, almost a year later. This was an unacceptable delay which will have likely caused the resident considerable time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  2. In her complaint of 19 April 2022, the resident raised a concern about the paving slabs in the garden. The landlord did not respond to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It is accepted that the resident did not raise this issue again in her subsequent complaints to the landlord. However, it is recommended that the landlord inspect the paving slabs in the garden and carries out repairs if necessary to address this concern.
  3. On 18 August 2022, the resident submitted a claim for compensation to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged her claim the same day and said it would respond in 40 working days, which would have been on or around 13 October 2022. The landlord did not contact the resident until 18 November 2022, over a month after the date when it had told the resident it would respond. This was unreasonable.
  4. On 13 April 2023, the resident told the landlord she would not accept its offer of compensation. On 20 April 2023, the landlord told the resident it was seeking further information and would respond to her shortly. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 26 September 2023, at the request of the Ombudsman. This further delay of 5 and a half months was unreasonable and may have made the resident feel that the landlord was not listening to her.
  5. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where maladministration has been identified, £100-£600 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for its failures in its handling of the associated complaint as set out above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that the Ombudsman is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
    1. Carry out repairs as recommended by the Scott Schedule to the air vent in the hallway cupboard, the vacuum seal between the windowpanes in the storeroom and the floorboard on the landing.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused byerrors in its handling of the repairs to her property.
    3. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Inspects the paving slabs in the garden and carries out repairs, if necessary, in line with its published repairs timescales.
    2. Provides training to complaints staff to ensure they refer repairs to the relevant department/teams if they identify that the resident has raised a repair as part of a complaint which may require an urgent/emergency appointment.
    3. Considers asking its operatives/contractors to provide timestamped photographs so that it can provide proof of the date repairs were completed when required to do so by the Ombudsman.