City of Wolverhampton Council (202335590)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335590

Wolverhampton City Council

30 April 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 response to the resident’s reports of damage to dining room floor tiles.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. 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.
3. The resident reported that the landlord’s contractors had damaged the tiles on her dining room floor when carrying out the adaptation works. On 19 July 2023, the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports that its contractors had damaged her dining room floor tiles. The resident said that the landlord was putting the blame on her for the damage, as she had organised her own contractors to attend to complete works in the property. She stated that her contractor did not go in the dining room and did not cause the damage.
4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 August 2023, in which it stated that:
   1. It was unable to establish full liability as there were additional contractors working in the property at the time who were appointed by the resident.
   2. It offered to clean the affected floor tiles as a gesture of goodwill.
   3. It understood the resident’s frustration regarding the length of time taken to source appropriate cleaners.
   4. 2 contractors were unwilling to return to complete the work and a third contractor was unable to undertake the specialist work required.
   5. An appointment with a cleaning contractor was cancelled at the resident’s request, and following this, the landlord asked the resident to provide dates and times that would be convenient.
   6. It had offered the resident the option of sourcing her own specialised cleaner and said that it would contribute the maximum cost that it had already been quoted by its contractor to complete the work.
   7. It had viewed the invoice from the resident’s own independent contractor and it would not cover the cost of replacing the tiles.
   8. It offered the resident £150, which was the sum quoted to clean the tiles.
5. The resident escalated her complaint in September 2023. The resident stated that she wanted the landlord to fully reimburse her for the cost of rectifying the damage to the tiles. Shesaid that the contractor she had appointed had attended to fit a patio window and did not complete any work in the dining room. The resident said that she had provided photographs of what the landlord’s contractors had done in her house.
6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 September 2023, in which it stated that:
   1. While its contractors were completing the adaptation works in the resident’s home, she also had other independent trades doing work at the same time.
   2. Its contractor provided photographs of the building materials that were left around her home, along with evidence of marks on the tiles.
   3. The tiles were not damaged, but had marks on them which could have been removed by a specialist cleaning company, and it therefore would not reimburse the resident for the cost of replacement tiles.
   4. It reiterated its stage 1 compensation offer of £150.
7. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 2 October 2023. She stated that the contractors she had appointed did not complete any work in the dining room. The resident said the issue had impacted her mental health.
8. On 1 April 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord’s contractors did not cover the flooring when carrying out the works, and the damage was not caused by her contractors. The resident also discussed her dissatisfaction with the adaptations that were conducted, which she said were not suitable for her daughter’s needs. The resident said she had physical and mental health issues as a result of the distress caused by the works and the damage by contractors to personal items. The resident also described how her daughter was impacted by the adaptation works when recovering from major surgery.

Assessment and findings

Scope

9. The landlord has not accepted liability for the damage to the tiles in the resident’s property. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to establish legal liability or award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might. However, we can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
10. Paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider a complaint which the Housing Ombudsman has already decided upon. This investigation will not consider the complaints about the decision not to remove a chimney breast during the adaptations, installation of internal doors, the resident’s request to install her own kitchen or damage to her furniture as these matters have already been subject to a separate Ombudsman investigation.
11. We acknowledge the resident’s comments about the effect on her health and the health of her daughter. However, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction by the landlord and any specific damage to the resident’s or her daughter’s health in this case. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. We are able to consider any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to dining room floor tiles

12. When works are carried out, contractors should endeavour to leave a property in the condition it was in prior to the work commencing. When a report of damage is made the landlord should make good any damage it is responsible for.
13. The landlord did not accept liability for the damage to the dining room tiles. In such circumstances, we would expect landlords to provide residents with details of their liability insurance so that a claim could be pursued. However, in this case, the landlord said it would resolve the issue by sourcing a specialist contractor to clean the tiles. This was a reasonable offer which may have mitigated the need for a liability claim.
14. The evidence indicates that a contractor attended to inspect the tiles in April 2023 and advised the landlord that they could be restored. The landlord said it had requested a quote from the contractor for the works. On 30 June 2023, the landlord asked the resident to confirm a date for the cleaning to take place. Following further correspondence from the resident on 12 July 2023, the landlord again asked for her to provide a convenient date. It informed her that all contractors it had spoken to agreed that the damage could be rectified by cleaning the tiles.
15. The landlord scheduled the cleaning works for 18 July 2023 however, the resident had to cancel this appointment due to being in hospital with an unwell relative. In an email to the resident on the same date, the landlord asked her to confirm alternative dates however, it is unclear whether the resident responded. The resident then arranged for the dining room tiles to be replaced in August 2023.
16. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in sourcing a suitable contractor. It stated that 2 cleaning contractors were unwilling to return to complete the work, but it did not comment on the reasons for this. It said that a third contractor was unable to undertake the specialist work required.
17. The length of time taken to find a suitable contractor is unclear as the landlord has not provided the resident’s initial report of damaged tiles. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord did make reasonable efforts to resolve the matter by offering to source a contractor to clean the tiles. The landlord also stated it would contribute financially if the resident wanted to find her own cleaning contractor. In its complaint responses, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation which was the sum quoted to clean the tiles.
18. While it is acknowledged that the resident wanted the tiles to be replaced, it was appropriate for the landlord to repair the damage. Contractors had advised that the tiles could be restored and it was reasonable for it to take this action in the first instance. However, the resident arranged for the tiles to be replaced, which did not allow the opportunity for the damage to be resolved by the cleaning contractor. Given the landlord made attempts to remedy the damage, no failings have been identified regarding its response to the resident’s reports.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s reports of damage to dining room floor tiles.