Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

City of Wolverhampton Council (202327282)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327282

Wolverhampton City Council

9 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 the resident’s reports that its contractors damaged her patio doors.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident’s daughter has mobility issues and is a wheelchair user. The landlord undertook adaptations to the resident’s property from 2022 with the aim of improving accessibility for the resident’s daughter.
  2. On 7 July 2022 the resident told the landlord that its contractor had damaged her patio doors during the property adaptation works in April and May 2022. On 12 July 2022, the landlord responded. It said it had investigated and did not accept liability for the damage to the patio door.
  3. We have not seen evidence of further contact about this issue until 14 September 2023when the resident complained to the landlord about the damaged patio doors. On 31 October 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. Itsaid it had a photo taken from the last day its contractors were “on site” and this showed no damage to the patio doors.
  4. On 7 November 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord told us it issued its stage 2 complaints response to the resident on 8 November 2023. We have not seen a copy of this.
  5. On 28 February 2024, the landlord agreed to open a new complaint about the resident’s damaged patio doors. It issued another stage 1 complaint response on 18 March 2024. It provided the same information as seen in its original stage 1 complaint response on 31 October 2023.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process again. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 1 May 2024. Its position remained the same.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to us to investigate. She stated her desired outcome was compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident told us she was concerned that her health and wellbeing had been impacted by the issues in her property. We acknowledge this has been a difficult time for the resident. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a negative impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim to the landlord’s liability insurer. While we cannot determine the specific impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord in terms of any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, as well as the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s health concerns.

The resident’s reports that the landlord’s contractor damaged her patio doors.

  1. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damaged patio doors.
  2. When the resident reported the damage to her patio doors in July 2022, the landlord responded promptly. The landlord’s internal emails showed it investigated the resident’s concerns. This included communicating with the contractor and obtaining photos of the doors. This was appropriate and showed the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  3. On 12 July 2022, the landlord told the resident it did not accept liability for the damage to her patio doors. It provided her with a chronology of events and explained that the doors were not damaged when its contractors had left the property. This was reasonable because its contractor had taken photos of the doors to evidence they were not damaged when it left the property. Additionally, the landlord had previously raised concerns the resident had her own contractors at the property during the same time period. This meant it was not possible to confirm, with certainty, who had damaged the doors.
  4. Furthermore, the resident had not raised her concern regarding the damaged doors until 2 months after it had happened. This would have made it more difficult to establish liability for the damage because it make it impossible to tell when the damage happened. The landlord continued to repeated its position regarding the damaged patio doors in further communications with the resident. This was fair as we recognise it was limited regarding what else it could say.
  5. The landlord has told us it has since replaced the patio doors as part of additional works at the property. Therefore, the impact of the damaged patio doors on the resident was reduced.

Complaint Handling

  1. We have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states it has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days of being received. The policy says the landlord aims to issue a full response within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and within 20 working days for complaints at stage 2.
  3. The resident originally complained to the landlord on 14 September 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, issued on 31 October 2023, was outside of its complaints policy timescales. However, this was a minor failing which would not have had a significant impact on the complaint.
  4. We have not seen a copy of the stage 2 complaint response which the landlord said it issued on 8 November 2023.  There was a lack of evidence from the landlord regarding the complaints process. This was a failing. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If the information the landlord provides is not clear, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its policy. We recommend that the landlord review its record-keeping systems so that it can satisfy itself that it has fulfilled its complaint handling responsibilities, and it can provide dates and evidence of its complaint responses, when required to do so by the Ombudsman.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 February 2024. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s previous complaint responses regarding the damaged patio doors. The landlord responded on 13 February 2024. It told her she had exhausted its complaints process and provided details of this service. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 February 2024 to express her dissatisfaction. The landlord agreed to raise a new complaint about the patio doors. This was an error. The decision was not in line with its complaints policy and may have caused unnecessary confusion for the resident. In line with the complaints policy, residents can approach the Ombudsman if they are unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and the landlord should have confirmed this again. Additionally, the landlord’s decision to revisit the same complaint again may have raised the resident’s expectations that the outcome would be different.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints responses in March and May 2024 repeated the same wording from the previous complaint responses. Repeating the complaints process was an inefficient use of time for both the landlord and the resident. We recommend the landlord considers offering refresher training to relevant staff if it has not done so already, so staff are aware of the correct process to follow if a resident expresses dissatisfaction with a stage 2 complaint response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports that its contractors damaged her patio doors.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report we order the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing for the complaint handling failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available to view on our website.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord:
    1. Offers refresher training for relevant complaint handling staff if it has not done so already. The training should include a focus on its complaints policy and what to do if a resident expresses dissatisfaction with a stage 2 response.
    2. Reviews its record-keeping systems so it can satisfy itself that it has fulfilled its complaint handling responsibilities, and can provide updated evidence relating to a complaint, when required to do so by the Ombudsman.