City of Wolverhampton Council (202404424)

Background

1. The resident lives with her 2 children. She told the landlord her children were medically vulnerable. She complained about a broken drain cover, uneven paving slabs, rodents in her property and damp and mould in December 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Pests in the property and associated repairs.
   2. Damp and mould.
   3. Uneven paving stones and the quality of repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. pests in the property and associated repairs;
   2. uneven paving stones and the quality of repairs.
5. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
6. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord unreasonably delayed completing pest control treatment and carrying out repairs and investigations to address the issue. It did not resolve the matter during the complaints process and failed to ensure it promptly followed up on actions promised in its final response. The compensation award was insufficient.
8. The landlord delayed in completing works to the paving slabs and drain to a satisfactory standard. It failed to suitably consider the household vulnerabilities and the compensation award was insufficient.
9. While the landlord reasonably investigated the resident’s reports of damp and mould, it delayed completing repairs and did not keep clear records of its findings.
10. The landlord did not log or escalate the resident’s complaint on time and failed to recognise this during the complaints process. It did not address all points of the complaint or appropriately detail the actions it would take to resolve the issues.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

11. In line with our Scheme, we consider complaints that were brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period and have exhausted its complaints process. In the landlord’s final response, it said it would complete pest control treatment and carry out repairs to address the pests in the property. We have focused our investigation on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from December 2022 to April 2024, and it’s handling of the proposed actions included in its final response. The resident has explained that she has ongoing concerns, but the more recent issues do not form part of this investigation. The resident may wish to make a new complaint about those matters.

What we did investigate

12. Landlords must keep properties safe and habitable. This includes keeping properties free from potential category 1 hazards, which include hazards resulting from access into, and harbourage within, a dwelling for pests under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS). Landlords also must maintain the structure of the property, and the HHSRS says they should take preventative measures to reduce access by pests to a ‘minimum’, such as by blocking holes or covering any necessary holes with grilles.
13. When a landlord is told of a potential hazard, it should inspect the property within a reasonable time. It should assess if there is a hazard and confirm if the property is fit for human habitation under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It should evidence its findings in writing, and complete repairs, or works such as removing hazards, within a reasonable time.
14. On 6 December 2022, the resident reported a hole in her roof that was letting pests into the property. The landlord raised a job to fix the roof, and it completed this on 14 December 2022. There were no further reports of pests until 1 December 2023, when the resident reported there were rats in her loft and under the floorboards.
15. In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted it delayed in requesting pest control treatment and authorising contractor repair works between February 2024 and March 2024. It acknowledged it had miscommunicated about the pest control treatment and apologised for the delays this caused to repairs. It also apologised for the delay in requesting repairs for air vents.
16. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress.
17. The landlord offered £250 total compensation for delays in completing repairs and not keeping the resident updated. The landlord did not separate this compensation offer between the complaint about pest control and the complaint about repairs to the garden. We have split the amount equally between both areas when considering if the offer was reasonable.
18. At the time of the April 2024 final response, the pest control treatment and repairs had been ongoing for 4 months and had not been resolved. The landlord identified there were extensive repairs that it still needed to complete and acknowledged multiple failings. It was aware the resident was particularly impacted by the situation as she was worried about her children’s health and the potential germs from the rodents. Its offer of £125 was not reflective of our Guidance on Remedies for failures which have significantly impacted the resident. Given the distress and uncertainty caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays and miscommunications, the offer was insufficient.
19. We have also seen that the landlord failed to attend appointments on 7 December 2023 and 9 February 2024 and did not notify the resident of this. It did not follow its management of vermin and pests procedure to update the resident on the progress of the pest treatment.
20. In particular, the landlord identified loft brickwork repairs were needed and raised an order for this on 5 January 2024. It told the resident the repairs would follow pest control treatment. On 11 January 2024, the landlord attended and noted it could not do the brickworks as the resident said the pest control contractor was due to attend that week, and she ‘wanted the area to be treated first’. This was in line with what the landlord had also indicated it would do. However, the landlord then recorded the job as complete and failed to raise follow up works.
21. The resident then said on 18 January 2024 and 9 February 2024 that the contractor told her pest control could not start treatment until holes in the loft were filled, and loft insulation removed. On 9 February 2024, the landlord incorrectly told her it could not attend until bedbugs had been treated, despite there being no report of bedbugs. These inaccuracies would likely have caused additional worry to the resident.
22. The resident chased again on 27 March 2024, and the landlord said the contractor would not complete repairs until pest control treated the property.
23. This shows there was a lack of oversight when arranging works, and conflicting information, which delayed both repairs and treatment. Despite the resident making the landlord aware of the issue, it did not raise a further job until 2 April 2024, which was 61 working days after it first identified the repairs.
24. The landlord’s record keeping was unclear. It did not detail investigation findings, and there are references to jobs and visits that are missing from logs, which made it difficult to confirm the actions taken by the landlord. We have seen no evidence of the work carried out by contractors. This likely impacted its oversight of the case.
25. The landlord did not clearly assess hazards or consider habitability during this process. This was a failing, particularly as the resident had explained her children had medical vulnerabilities and had raised concerns about the pests and repairs making them ill.
26. The resident also said on multiple occasions that she did not want to live at the property due to the potential risk the pest infestation and repairs posed to her son. While the landlord signposted for support services, it did not address the resident’s concerns about how the works may impact her children’s health or provide information about her housing options. There is no evidence it considered vulnerabilities or its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010 when it responded to the reports of rodents or arranged repairs.
27. In its final response, the landlord said it would complete further repairs and pest control treatments. The work was extensive, including floorboards and stair treads being removed, a kitchen refit, ceiling repairs, and scaffolding. There is no evidence the landlord considered the impact these were likely to have on the resident or her children, such as by assessing if temporary accommodation was suitable.
28. The record keeping remained poor, and we have not been able to establish when it completed all works. However, there is evidence of further delays. Scaffolding was not completed until September 2024, pest control treatment continued into October 2024, and it did not complete the works to the kitchen until November 2024. There is a lack of evidence to support that it communicated with the resident effectively during this time. This was unreasonable and did not show that it took on learnings from the complaint process.
29. The landlord removed the loft insulation on 9 April 2024 but there is no evidence to show when this was replaced. The resident was chasing the landlord for this as late as August 2025 and explained she did not want to go another winter without insulation. In October 2025, the resident told us the landlord had only recently completed the work. This was a significant failing as it left the resident and her children in a property with inadequate insulation for up to 18 months. The resident told us the property was freezing during this time.
30. The landlord did not do enough to put the complaint right. It failed to resolve the issue during the complaint process or appropriately respond to concerns about vulnerabilities or rehousing. After its final response, it did not carry out the further actions promised in a reasonable timeframe and missed opportunities to assess if it could offer support to the resident.
31. The resident told us some issues are still ongoing, and we have seen evidence she raised concerns about rodents, delays to repairs and the quality of works to the landlord following the final response. We have found maladministration and made orders for the landlord to put things right. This includes compensation of £600 to reflect the impact on the resident over an extended period of time.

32. The resident reported damp and cracks in her bedroom ceiling in her complaint on 12 December 2023. She said this was caused by holes in her roof, which were also letting in pests. She said she was concerned for her children due to their medical vulnerability.
33. There is no evidence the landlord raised a specific damp and mould visit or job. In its stage 1 response of 10 January 2024, it said it inspected the property on 5 January 2024 and did not identify any evidence of damp, mould or water ingress. It said the resident had advised she had redecorated, and it advised her of how to report damp if it reoccurred. It confirmed it would assess outstanding repairs to the bedroom ceiling after it had completed pest treatment.
34. The landlord inspected the property within 15 working days, informed the resident of its findings and told her how to report any new issues. We have not seen evidence that the resident raised further concerns about damp and mould during the complaint process. In its final response, the landlord said it would complete the ceiling repairs following an asbestos check. It completed the fast-track asbestos check on 9 April 2024 and an email from the contractor said it had carried out repairs to the bedroom ceiling between 25 June 2024 and 28 June 2024.
35. Given the lack of evidence of damp and mould early in 2024 and the need to do asbestos checking, it was reasonable that the landlord arranged to complete bedroom ceiling works after the check. However, there was a delay between April and June before it completed the follow up works. The landlord’s website said it aimed to complete routine repairs in 20 working days, and it did not meet this.
36. We note the inspection notes from the visit do not evidence how it investigated the damp, or how it established there was no water ingress. It did not record any findings or show that it considered potential hazards. This was not appropriate albeit does not appear to have impacted the outcome in this case.
37. We have found service failure and made orders for the landlord to put things right. This includes compensation of £50 to reflect the impact of the delay on the resident.

38. The landlord’s website said it aims to complete programmed repairs within 90 days. The resident first reported a cracked manhole cover on 11 July 2023. The landlord made the area safe on 19 July 2023, but the resident raised further concerns in August 2023 about this being a trip hazard. On 13 September 2023, the landlord attended and identified programmed works needed to both gardens, including replacing the manhole cover and fixing uneven paving. It noted this was causing people to trip. It recorded the works as complete on 20 December 2023.
39. However, in its stage 1 response of 10 January 2024, the landlord said that the works were still ongoing. It said the manhole repair was linked to the pest control works and it would complete this on 11 January 2024. It also noted the rear garden slabs were uneven and cracked and said it had allocated the work identified in September 2023 to the contractor on 6 November 2023. It said it needed a survey before the repairs could take place, and the contractor aimed to complete the work by 21 February 2024. It apologised for the delays.
40. Between January and February 2024, the resident reported she was not happy with the repairs completed to the front and back garden. The landlord escalated her complaint on 6 March 2024 and noted she had raised concerns about the quality of repairs.
41. In its final response on 2 April 2024, the landlord said the rear garden slab repairs were still outstanding and upheld this part of the complaint. It acknowledged the resident said the state of the garden was worse following the works completed to that point, and it said it had asked the contractor to reattend and make good the repair. It said after the works were complete, its Repairs Manager would complete a quality check.
42. By April 2024, the manhole works had been ongoing for 9 months, and the works in the rear garden for 7 months, without a satisfactory repair completed. The landlord’s record keeping does not show when it completed the promised survey or works. The evidence suggests continued delays, as the resident reported concerns in May 2024 and chased for updates in June 2024. The landlord raised a new job to complete the work in August 2024, but it did not do so until 14 October 2024, 13 months after it first identified the works. This was an unreasonable delay and not in line with policy. We have also seen no evidence a Repair Manager checked the quality of the repair.
43. The landlord also failed to consider vulnerabilities. She said the garden was a trip hazard and explained her child had osteochondritis. The landlord noted the raised drain cover in the rear garden was dangerous due to her son’s medical condition in its stage 1 response but did not address this further. There is no evidence the landlord considered vulnerabilities when it arranged these works or considered how to minimise impact. This was unreasonable.
44. The landlord failed to carry out required repairs in line with its policy, and it did not put this right through the complaint process. As explained above, the landlord offered £125 total compensation. The compensation is not in line with our Guidance on Remedies for failures which have significantly impacted the resident. Given the timescale and the serious concerns the resident raised about the impact on her household, we have ordered the landlord to pay £600 total compensation.
45. The resident has also raised ongoing issues with the front garden, which she says the landlord did not address. While it is evident there were works happening in the front garden, the records do not clearly show that this was part of the resident’s original complaint. We have recommended the landlord contact the resident to explain its position on the works to the front garden.

46. The timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy in 2023 were in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (2022). Its updated policy in June 2024 aligns with the 2024 Code.
47. The resident first complained on 12 December 2023. The landlord’s policy was to respond within 10 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 20 December 2023, 6 days after receipt. At this point, the landlord said it would respond in 10 working days, by 10 January 2024. While public holidays during this time would have affected the response deadline, the delay in logging the complaint was not in line with the Code. The resident chased the landlord twice before it acknowledged the complaint.
48. The resident tried to escalate her complaint several times between 18 January and 5 March 2024. The landlord did not confirm the escalation until 6 March 2024. This was not in line with the Code and was a failing. The landlord did not recognise or put right these failings during the complaint process.
49. The Code says that landlords must confirm the details of any outstanding actions at stage 2. In its final response, the landlord listed outstanding repairs and who was responsible for these. It did not include a timescale for the works or provide a point of contact to update the resident. It would have been reasonable to include this information in its response. This may have managed the resident’s expectations.
50. As explained above, we have also seen that the landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns about vulnerabilities or her request to move within either response. As such, it did not resolve these concerns. This was not in line with the Code.
51. The resident reported further concerns about delays and the landlord’s handling of works after the final response in April 2024. The landlord did not identify the resident’s further expressions of dissatisfaction as complaints. This was inappropriate and did not show learning from its complaint handling. We have made orders to address this. We have ordered £150 compensation given the time and trouble caused to the resident between December 2023 and April 2024.

Learning

Repairs and pest control

52. The landlord did not effectively oversee the repairs or pest control treatment, which led to delays. It should ensure it has processes in place to monitor progress and ensure jobs are being completed to clear deadlines.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

53. The landlord’s record keeping was unclear and lacked detail. Effective record keeping ensures the landlord can monitor works and keep the resident accurately updated. The landlord should ensure it has clear records of jobs and findings from investigations, including works carried out by contractors.

Communication

54. Clear and regular communication is important when managing repairs. The landlord should proactively provide updates so the resident does not have to chase for information. The landlord should ensure it checks if any works need to be completed before contractors can begin the wider repairs. Failure to ensure this created confusion and delays for the resident and the contractors.