Wolverhampton City Council (202123355)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123355

Wolverhampton City Council

24 October 2022


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 drainage issues at the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a new build.
  2. On 30 July 2021, the resident reported concerns about flooding to the landlord due to drainage issues at the property. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend the property on 02 August 2021 to inspect the tarmac levels, which it confirmed were normal; but, to ensure pooling did not happen, it had installed an Aco drain on 10 August 2021. In December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the property had flooded on 02 August 2021, which resulted in the emergency services being called. The landlord arranged a further inspection on 26 December 2021 where defects such as water entering the property over the front doorstep were identified. The resident involved her local MP on 16 December 2021. Between December 2021 and 25 March 2022, the landlord regularly held discussions with the contractor about the proposed works, and the best way to ensure the issues do not reoccur. In February 2022, the landlord held two meetings at the property to discuss solutions, and identified the front of the property as a flood risk; it provided the resident with sand bags due to bad weather forecasts at the time.
  3. The contractor experienced issues with its tarmac contractor throughout March 2022, and attended the property on 24 March 2022. The resident declined the works due to the pooling issues on the side of the property not being included in the works. The landlord and contractor agreed to do the works to the side of the property and attended on 29 March 2022, but only completed the remedial work to the front of the property. The landlord queried this with the contractor and continued to chase it until April 2022, when it said it would complete the remedial works at the side of the property during the general end of defects work across the estate as it was more cost effective. The works were due to commence the week beginning 25 April 2022; but, due to further issues with the tarmac contractor, works were delayed. The works were completed on 24 May 2022.
  4. The resident raised the stage one complaint on 31 January 2022, through her local MP. It raised concerns of flooding at the property. In the resident’s escalation request on 02 March 2022, she advised that the Aco drain fitted was plastic, and had no affect on the drainage as puddles ran over it, and had no soakaway attached. She was dissatisfied with no progress being made as the issue had been ongoing for eight months. She advised she was concerned for her safety and security in the property due to the ongoing issues.
  5. In the landlord’s stage one response on 11 February 2022, it advised that, at that time, the delays were due to contractors seeking further advice on the remedial work to ensure they are completed correctly. It advised any previous work had met the National House Building Council (NHBC) standards and that it was committed to resolving the issues. It apologised for its service and advised that its contractors normally go ‘above and beyond’ their obligations. In its stage two response on 29 March 2022, the landlord advised that the delay on 24 March was due to resident being unhappy with the proposed works but that works did commence on 28 March 2022 following this. It apologised for the delays. It stated that it hoped that, as the works were carried out, the issues would be resolved to avoid further disruption.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 12 May 2022. She was dissatisfied with the recurring delays in remedial work that were still outstanding. She felt that the landlord had not understood and addressed her concerns and was seeking for the works to be completed. The landlord and resident have confirmed that the works were completed on 24 May 2022.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that planned repairs would be completed within 90 calendar days from the initial request.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy also states that some repairs cannot be completed in one visit, and it will keep the customer informed of any progress.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues at the property.

 

  1. After the initial report in July 2021 regarding the drainage issues at the property, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for an inspection to take place, which was completed within six working days, which found that the tarmac levels were correct. It also installed a new drainage system at the property to alleviate any water pooling. The landlord relied on the opinions of its qualified staff, who had advised the issue had been resolved. As no further contact was received from the resident, it was understandable for the landlord to consider the works as completed.
  2. When the resident contacted the landlord to report the issues again on 17 December 2021, and informed the landlord that the property had flooded on one occasion in August 2021, it acted appropriately by organising a second inspection of the property. This was reasonable given the length of time in between the two reports. The landlord acted appropriately during this time by providing the resident with sand bags due to help protect the property in the case of any bad weather forecasts, and to minimise the risks of flooding. This shows that the landlord did take the resident’s concerns seriously following her report. Following the inspection taking place which identified issues with the tarmac at the property on 26 December 2021, the landlord referred the works to its contractor on 05 January 2022 which was four working days later. Whilst it may have been helpful for the landlord to refer the works as soon as the issues were identified, the delay of four working days would not have had a significant impact on the overall issues and were within the landlord’s repairs policy timescales.
  3. Following this, it is evident that the landlord regularly chased the contractor throughout the duration of the process. Whilst two meetings were held in February 2022 between the landlord and contractors to discuss the proposed works, there was no progress in remedial works until 24 March 2022 when the contractor attended to address the issues at the front of the property. Whilst this Service does acknowledge that repairs such as paving works and tarmac resurfacing may take longer to organise due to the works needed, this was a total of 97 calendar days since the initial request on 17 December 2021 and therefore it had already exceeded the appropriate timeframe for planned works as stated in the landlord’s repairs policy. This Service does acknowledge that there was a delay from 24 March 2022 and 29 March 2022 as the resident was dissatisfied with the proposed works as it did not include the remedial work to the side of the property; however, this delay of two working days did not significantly contribute to the overall the delays within the repairs process.
  4. Likewise, if repairs are going to take longer to complete, it is important for the landlord to maintain regular communication with the resident. From the evidence provided to this Service, it is clear that the resident had to regularly chase the landlord for updates throughout the process. It is also evident that several dates for remedial works were provided to the resident but the contractors did not follow through with the remedial works. In this case, the landlord would be expected to appropriately set the resident’s expectations and to provide clear information about the repairs as per its repairs policy. Whilst the landlord has informed this Service that the majority of communication with the resident was via phone calls, and specifically between January to March 2022 was almost on a daily basis, it has not provided evidence of this and ultimately, this shows both poor communication and record-keeping from the landlord. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. 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 there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  5. The repairs to the front of the property took place during the week commencing 28 March 2022, a total of 102 calendar days following the initial request. Whilst this is only twelve calendar days outside of the appropriate timeframe as stated in the landlord’s repairs policy, it did have an impact on the resident which was exacerbated by the landlord’s poor communication, which the landlord failed to provide redress for.
  6. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the works to the developer, given the property was a new build. The developer remains responsible for any remedial works during the defect period, therefore it is appropriate for the landlord to manage its resources by requiring the developer to complete any works. During this time the landlord’s responsibilities are limited to appropriately managing the developer’s performance as far as is possible under any contractual arrangements, and updating the resident.
  7. As noted above the landlord did chase the developer. Furthermore the delay was the responsibility of the developer and its tarmac contractor, as opposed to the landlord or its contractors. However as also noted above, the landlord has failed to evidence that it kept the resident up to date about its negotiations with the developer, particularly given the landlord provided estimated completion dates that were not met. In these circumstances it is reasonable to expect landlords to offer some redress to acknowledge the inconvenience experienced by their residents.
  8. The contractor advised that the delays in remedial work to the side of the property were due to it being included as part of an end of defect works, as it posed no flood risk to the property. Generally, there is a ‘defects period’ with any new build of between 6-24 months.  During this period the builders/developers remain responsible for any defects/snagging issues.  Repairs are usually reported to the landlord and then addressed towards the end of the defects period (unless urgent) by the developer and signed off by the developer and resident. The works to the side of the property were completed on 24 May 2022. Therefore, whilst it was appropriate for the contractor to include the works in the general ‘end of defects’ work, it would be expected to effectively communicate this approach with the resident. The landlord failed to do this and this is therefore further evidence of the landlord’s poor communication.
  9. Ultimately, whilst the delays within the repairs process were largely due to the developer’s contractors, the landlord failed to provide evidence that shows it communicated appropriately with the resident in order to set her expectations for the work. The total time taken for the landlord to address the issues exceed the appropriate timeframe, as listed within its repairs policy. Throughout the complaints process, the landlord also failed to consider an appropriate form of redress for the delays and to acknowledge its failings and therefore, overall, this constitutes a service failure.
  10.  The Ombudsman recommends compensation of £100-£600 where the landlord has acknowledged some of its failings, but failed to adequately address the detriment to the resident. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged the delays, and in turn the inconvenience this had cause, but failed to provide redress of this. The landlord has also failed to acknowledge its poor record-keeping and communication, and the impact this has had on the resident. Whilst this did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint, as the landlord ultimately completed the remedial work at the property, it did have an impact on the resident and compensation is due in view of this.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of drainage issues at the property.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £150 compensation. This is made up of:
    1. £50 for poor communication.
    2. £50 for poor record-keeping.
    3. £50 for the delays in remedial work.
  2. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its record-keeping processes for all forms of contact to avoid similar issues occurring in the future.