Wigan Council (202418814)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202418814

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Wigan Council

Landlord type

Local Authority / ALMO or TMO

Occupancy

Secure Tenancy

Date

18 December 2025

Background

  1. The resident lives in a house with her adult son who is also her carer. The resident’s son sometimes communicated with the landlord on her behalf during the period of the complaint. However, for clarity we have recorded that all communication came from the resident.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident has arthritis, asthma, and stage 3 kidney failure. She was aged 77 at the time of the complaint. On 18 January 2024 she complained that her heating system had started leaking the previous day and an emergency plumber had attended. The gas contractor (contractor A) had then attended and isolated the leak, leaving her with no heating and hot water. She later also complained that the landlord had unnecessarily removed a bed from the property.

What the complaint is about

  1. The landlord’s response to a leak which resulted in a lack of heating and hot water.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the removal of a bed from the property.
  3. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found that:
    1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak which resulted in a lack of heating and hot water.
    2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the removal of a bed.
    3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

  1. The landlord took 7 days during January to restore the heating and hot water to the property. The landlord failed to keep the resident informed during this time.
  2. The landlord confirmed that the bed did not need to be removed to carry out the repair. There is no evidence of it taking notes at the time of the issue resulting in a lack of evidence.
  3. There were delays in the complaint handling process and inaccuracies in the stage 1 complaint response.

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.

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

1

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

  • The apology is provided by a manager.
  • The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
  • It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

08 January 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows:

  • £200 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the leak.
  • £300 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the bed removal
  • £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

 

No later than

08 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The landlord should consider whether it needs to write or update a procedure regarding removal of belongings from properties. It should also consider how it communicates this to staff and contractors.

The landlord should consider whether complaint handling staff need further training to ensure accuracy of responses.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

18 January 2024

The resident complained to the landlord via telephone. The landlord noted that she said that:

  • There had been a leak from her heating system the previous day.
  • An emergency plumber and electrician attended but said that contractor A would need to attend.
  • When contractor A arrived, they did nothing but moan and isolate the leak which left her with no heating and hot water.
  • She had slept downstairs and was extremely cold.
  • She had been told that contractor A would return to complete the work in the next few days which was not acceptable as she was elderly and unwell.

22 January 2024

The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint.

15 March 2024

The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said that:

  • The resident reported a burst pipe out of hours on 17 January 2024. An emergency plumber and electrician had attended the property to make this safe on 18 January 2024.
  • A faulty radiator had caused the leak and the resident was left with no heating or hot water.
  • Contractor A supplied temporary heating on 19 January 2024.
  • It had asked contractor B to repair the radiator. However, the operatives were unable to access the boiler in the bedroom due to the number of items in the room.
  • The resident’s community link worker liaised with the housing repairs manager, and the gas compliance team and attended the property to help move or remove items to make the flooring accessible.
  • Contractor A attended again on 23 January 2024 but were unable to complete the work because a wardrobe was in the way.
  • Contractor B attended again on 25 January 2024, moved items of furniture around, and completed the repairs.
  • Its tenancy services team had confirmed that her bed was dismantled to make room for the repairs. However, the resident had decided that the bed should be removed from the property.
  • As this was her decision, it would not compensate her for the loss of the bed. However, it provided contact details for a charitable organisation that could help with a replacement.

30 March 2024

The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said that:

  • It was contractor B that identified the source of the leak on 25 January 2024.
  • Temporary heating was supplied on 20 January 2024, not 19 January 2024 and this was only after she had called the landlord several times.
  • The gas compliance team had not visited the property.
  • She had not refused to have a boiler fitted and the boiler was not situated in the bedroom. There was a back boiler behind the fireplace in the living room.
  • She was told that the bed had to be removed before the repair could take place and therefore agreed to it under duress.
  • She thought that contractor A had used the furniture as a reason to avoid doing the work, because when contractor B attended and completed the job, they did not need access to the floorboards in the bedroom and did not move any items of furniture.
  • This had had an impact on her health.
  • The difference in service between contractor A and B was “stark” with contractor A being “abrasive and incompetent” and contractor B being “professional and courteous”.

7 May 2024

The landlord wrote to the resident to extend the timeframe for the stage 2 complaint response. It gave a new deadline of 28 May 2024.

28 May 2024

The landlord extended the complaint deadline to week commencing 3 June 2024.

6 June 2024

The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It said that:

  • It partially upheld the complaint because it acknowledged that it may not have been necessary to remove the bed to complete the repair work. However, it reminded the resident that it was her decision to dispose of the bed and it had not requested this. Therefore, it would not reimburse her for the cost.
  • The volume of belongings in the bedroom made it difficult to identify the source of the leak.
  • Contractor A did not appear to have investigated other possible sources of the leak during the initial visit and had they identified the source of the leak at that time the removal of the bed would not have been necessary.
  • It apologised for its misunderstanding that contractor B had removed further belongings.
  • It apologised that the stage 1 complaint response said that the gas compliance team had visited when they had made a phone call.
  • Following contractor A’s initial visit, it had noted that the resident had electric heaters in the property. However, when she told them she was still cold on 19 January 2024 it had delivered more heaters the next day.
  • It acknowledged that the resident had no heating for a week and it apologised for the delay in the identification of the source of the leak and any inconvenience caused.
  • It offered £50 compensation for the disturbance, inconvenience, and stress caused and a further £50 compensation for the delay in handling the complaint.

Referral to the Ombudsman

In December 2025 the resident told us that she is still sleeping on the sofa because she has not been able to replace the bed. She said that she would like a new bed.

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.

Complaint

Leak resulting in lack of hot water and heating

Finding

Maladministration
  1. The resident described the effect the situation had on her mental health. We do not doubt her comments. However, in line with our Scheme we are unable to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her health. However, we have considered whether she experienced any general distress because of any errors made by the landlord. A decision about damages caused to health is more appropriate for the courts and she may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep installations for water and space heating in good repair and working order.
  3. The landlord does not currently have a repairs policy that gives guidance on target timescales for completion of repairs. It has provided evidence to show that it is currently working on this.
  4. The resident reported that a pipe had burst in the property on 17 January 2024 at 11.45pm. She told us that water was pouring through the ceiling into the living room. A contractor attended and isolated the leak within a reasonable time. However, this left the resident with no heating or hot water. Following this there is evidence that the resident took time and trouble calling the landlord for an update and logging a complaint because there was a lack of communication from contractor A about when they would return to complete the job.
  5. There was then confusion from contractor A about the source of the leak. They returned to the property and said that they could not complete the work due to the number of items in the bedroom. However, there is evidence that contractor B was able to find the source of the issue without the need to remove items.
  6. The resident had no heating and hot water for 7 full days, which we consider to be an unacceptable and avoidable delay considering the time of year, her age, and her medical conditions. There is evidence that this caused her distress and inconvenience. There is no evidence that the landlord kept her updated during this time and she also took further time and trouble calling the landlord to request extra heaters.
  7. Due to the delay caused by contractor A’s failure to find the source of the leak within a reasonable time and the landlord’s lack of communication there was maladministration in its handling of the leak. It offered the resident £50 compensation for this aspect of her complaint. However, we do not consider that this was proportionate to the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified. Therefore, we have ordered it to pay the resident £200 to reflect this.

Complaint

Bed

Finding

Maladministration
  1. The landlord decided not to reimburse the resident for the bed because it said it had removed it at her request. However, the resident said she felt pressurised into allowing the landlord to remove it. It is not our role to decide which version of events is correct. However, we will decide whether the landlord handled the situation appropriately in the circumstances.
  2. There is evidence that contractor A first said that the bed should be dismantled to make space and then when this was removed, they said the wardrobe was in the way. However, the landlord confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response that it was not necessary to remove any furniture. The resident also told the landlord that contractor B had resolved the issue without taking up the floorboards in the bedroom. Therefore, evidence suggests that the bed did not need to be moved.
  3. This error caused delays which caused the resident further distress. She told us that she felt “desperate” because contractor A said they could not do the work and therefore she agreed for the landlord to take the bed away because there was nowhere else to put it within the house. It would have been good practice for the landlord to ask the resident to sign a document to confirm that she was happy for it to dispose of the bed. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so. This error makes it unclear whether the landlord explained the reasons why it was removing the item and explained the full consequences of the situation. Had it done so, there would have been more clarity regarding the resident’s decision and more certainty about the advice the landlord gave her.
  4. We have also seen no evidence of notes taken at the time which detail the advice given to the resident regarding the removal of furniture. This error means that the landlord relied on the memory of a member of staff who was there at the time. Therefore, there is less clarity regarding the incident and whether the resident was fully aware that her decision to take the bed away would result in her having no bed to sleep in.
  5. The landlord provided details of a charitable organisation that may be able to assist with a new bed. This could have provided a solution to the issue. However, the resident has told us that she felt upset about “begging” to a charitable organisation and did not feel comfortable sleeping in a bed that someone else had slept in. Therefore, she did not follow up this suggestion.
  6. In summary, the landlord did not record the advice it gave at the time and there is no documentary evidence that confirms that she wanted it to take the bed. There is evidence that the bed could have remained in the property, and had the resident been aware of this she would not have authorised the landlord to remove it. The landlord did however, tried to mitigate the situation by signposting the resident to a charitable organisation to get a replacement. The failings identified have caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she has not had a bed for nearly 2 years. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 to reflect this.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Maladministration
  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement. It says that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement. However, if it is unable to provide a response within this time it will write to let the resident know why there is a delay and confirm the estimated time it will take to provide a full response.
  2. In this case the landlord took 40 working days to respond to the stage 1 complaint during which time it did not update the resident. There is evidence that she took time and trouble contacting it on 30 January 2024, and 5 and 23 February 2024 to chase a response.
  3. The landlord took 47 working days to provide a stage 2 complaint response. We acknowledge that it provided 2 updates during this time. However, it provided the first update after the date the response was due. The lengthy delays at both stages of the complaints process meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused her further distress and inconvenience. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
  4. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code says that complaint handlers must consider all relevant information and evidence carefully.
  5. The stage 1 complaint contained several factual errors such as the boiler being situated in the bedroom instead of the living room. This undermined the resident’s confidence in the complaints process and cost her time and trouble escalating the complaint.
  6. Due to the long delays and inaccuracies in the stage 1 complaint response there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It offered £50 compensation at stage 2 of the complaints process to reflect the delay. However, we do not consider this to be proportionate to the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the errors. We have therefore ordered it to pay £100 compensation to the resident to reflect this.

Learning

General

  1. The landlord should take note of our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance when producing its new repairs policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord should ensure that staff are aware of the importance of taking notes at the time of incidents.

Communication

  1. There was a lack of communication by the landlord while the resident had no heating and hot water.