City of Wolverhampton Council (202519732)

Background

1. In January 2025 the resident asked the landlord for a move because of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour. The landlord said it could not support this request, but gave advice about applying for a transfer via the council’s housing register.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Request for a move.
   2. Concerns about staff conduct.
   3. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a move.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
5. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a move was fair, reasonable and in accordance with policy.
7. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct was reasonable.
8. There was a minor delay in the landlord’s complaint handling, which it has taken reasonable action to put right.

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.

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.

9. When the resident asked for a move because of ASB by a neighbour in January 2025, the landlord said it could not support this request. The council’s allocations policy says it can consider a resident’s eligibility to move in extreme circumstances, for example a threat to life, subject to the agreement of landlord staff.
10. We acknowledge the ASB has been disturbing and upsetting for the resident. However, there was no evidence of any extreme circumstances, including a threat to life, that met the criteria for landlord staff to support his request for a move. In addition, the landlord was taking steps to investigate and address the ASB. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord declined to support the resident’s request for a move. It told him he could apply for a transfer via the council’s housing register or find a mutual exchange. This was appropriate to help him understand his options.
11. In multiple contacts in February 2025, the resident asked for clarity on the process to be added to the housing register. The landlord explained the process and told him any application was unlikely to be awarded priority, as he would be classed as adequately housed. It told him he could provide medical evidence to support his application, which may increase his priority.
12. Council housing registers are extremely oversubscribed and so it is appropriate that landlord staff give realistic advice to residents about their rehousing options. In this case the landlord’s response was appropriate to help the resident understand the likely outcome of any application, and not raise his expectations unnecessarily. The resident subsequently said the landlord had declined his request to be added to the housing register. While the landlord had given advice about the likely outcome of an application to join the housing register, it had not declined the request and nor was it in a position to do so. This is a decision for the council’s housing allocations team.
13. The resident raised concerns about the process that was followed in 2024 for him to be added to the council’s housing register and subsequently rehoused. He said there were inconsistencies in the landlord’s approach and he felt this was because of staff not liking him. The housing register is a function of the council that sits outside its capacity as a landlord. This means the handling of the resident’s rehousing application falls outside the scope of our investigation, and would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to consider. What we have considered is the landlord’s response to the concerns and whether this was fair and reasonable.
14. The landlord explained the process that had been followed for the resident to be added to the housing register in 2024, and why this differed from his more recent request. It confirmed this was in accordance with the council’s allocations procedure and said this was not influenced by staff’s personal opinions. This was reasonable and showed it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to reassure him about its actions.
15. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a move. We acknowledge the resident still wants to move because of ASB and medical reasons. Therefore, we recommend the landlord tells the resident, in writing, his options for rehousing.

16. We are an independent service that investigates and resolves complaints. We are an alternative dispute resolution service, set up as an alternative to the courts, designed to help resolve disputes between residents and member landlords. As an alternative to the courts, we are unable to conclude whether a landlord’s actions have been unlawful or improper. This is a decision only a court can make. Therefore, we are unable to determine that the landlord or its staff have lied.
17. It is not our role to investigate staff conduct concerns. This is a matter for the landlord to investigate. What we have considered is what action the landlord took to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns, and whether this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
18. The resident confirmed he had made previous complaints about a member of management staff in respect of their involvement in previous ASB cases. These complaints were considered via the landlord’s internal complaints process in 2024 and not upheld. As the concerns had already been considered via the landlord’s internal process, it was reasonable that it did not reinvestigate them when the resident raised his complaint in April 2025.
19. The resident asked the landlord to remove the staff member from his ongoing ASB case because of the previous complaints. The landlord has a limited amount of staff resources, so it cannot always accommodate requests for cases to be reallocated or certain members of staff not to be involved. Where complaints are upheld or failure is found, it is reasonable for the landlord to consider whether these steps can be taken, in the interests of rebuilding trust and confidence in its services. However, it is not always possible to accommodate these requests, even in those circumstances. Our role in these situations is to assess whether the landlord’s actions and decisions are reasonable. It is not our role to advise the landlord about decision making on the live handling of issues.
20. As the landlord had not upheld previous complaints about the staff member and found no fault in their actions, its decision not to remove them from the investigation was reasonable. When the resident made his complaint in April 2025, he said his previous complaints about the staff member were with us for investigation. He felt this was another reason why they should not be involved in his case. Despite this, it was still reasonable that the landlord decided not to remove the staff member from the investigation, as no fault had been found.
21. The landlord told the resident it would consider our findings in respect of this, which was appropriate. We determined one of these complaints (202344739) in September 2025 and found no maladministration. Therefore, it is reasonable that the landlord did not alter its decision following this. A further complaint (202426117) concerning staff conduct by this individual is pending investigation by us. The landlord is encouraged to reconsider this matter once we have determined that complaint.
22. The resident also raised concerns about the conduct of a senior member of staff in the ASB team. He referred to specific incidents where he felt the ASB team had not properly handled his concerns between 2022 and 2024. As these historic issues did not specifically relate to the individual staff member, it was reasonable that the landlord did not address them as staff conduct concerns.
23. The resident raised concerns about the staff member communicating with other agencies about him. He said this led to them not working with him. While the resident listed agencies he said were contacted (Police, MPs, local Councillors and the Mayor’s office), he did not give specifics of when this happened or provide any evidence of inappropriate communication.
24. The resident said the staff member told the agencies he was a serial complainer. From our review of the evidence, we can see the resident has made a number of complaints to the landlord. It is reasonable that the landlord may share this information with these types of agencies. If this led to the other agencies not working with the resident, this is a matter for him to take up with them, rather than the landlord.
25. Considering the limited information provided and the lack of supporting evidence, it was reasonable that the landlord concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated and took no further action. It did invite the resident to provide any evidence he had and confirmed it would investigate this. This was appropriate and showed it took staff conduct concerns seriously. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

26. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
27. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 29 April 2025, 5 working days after the complaint was made. It responded 10 working days later. Both were in line with the policy committed timescales.
28. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 30 June 2025, 12 working days after the complaint was escalated. This was over the 5 working day committed timescale set out in the landlord’s policy. The landlord acknowledged this delay and apologised in the stage 2 acknowledgement and response. As this was a short delay, this was a minor failure. Therefore, the apology was reasonable to put things right. The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 17 working days, in line with the policy committed timescale.
29. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any failures The appropriateness of any actions taken to put things right are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them. As the landlord took reasonable action to put things right in response to the minor failure, it has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its complaint handling.

Learning

30. The landlord should acknowledge delays in its complaint handling and take appropriate steps to put things right, as it did in this case.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. No record keeping concerns were identified as part of this investigation. The information provided was sufficient for us to complete our investigation.

Communication

32. The landlord should give honest, realistic advice about rehousing options, as it did in this case. This ensures residents understand likely outcomes and any possible limitations.