Wolverhampton City Council (202205867)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205867

Wolverhampton City Council

20 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:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in his bathroom;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. The resident has experienced ongoing issues with the condition of his bathroom since August 2020. The resident has advised that he reported this to the landlord, however, this is not noted on the landlord’s records. On 31 December 2020, the resident advised that he was dissatisfied that no works were raised following his reports. He requested works be arranged and noted his availability was after 2:30pm.
  3. The landlord’s repair records note that between December 2020 and October 2021, a number of work orders were carried out relating to inspections and repairs to the bathroom. These included new vinyl flooring, anti-fungicide treatment, plastering, plumbing, and other general repairs.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 10 November 2021, in which he included the following:
    1. Several inspections of the bathroom had now taken place, but only a few repair jobs had been carried out.
    2. Some temporary repairs had been undertaken, but many of the issues he had first raised in August 2020 were yet to be resolved.
    3. He did not believe that the landlord had properly ensured that the property was in a lettable state prior to it being handed over to him.
    4. He took a day of unpaid leave from his work as he was informed by the contractor that it would take all day to complete the repairs, however, the repairs agreed with the contractor were not done.
    5. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that all outstanding repairs were completed and appointments booked at times suitable to him, which would be between 3pm to 7pm on working days and 9am to 2pm on weekends.
    6. If the times given were not suitable for the landlord and contractor, the resident requested to be rehoused.
  5. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the problems he had experienced in arranging appointments and the inconvenience that this had caused. It also apologised for the resident’s dissatisfaction with the quality of the completed work.
    2. Confirmed that following an asbestos survey it had raised the recommended work to undertake damp proofing, remove the tiles on two of the walls, and replace them with sheet splashback, repaint the remaining walls, and renew the bath panel.
    3. Informed the resident that its contractor would be in touch to arrange suitable times for the remaining works to go ahead.
    4. Confirmed that the property met its lettable standard prior to it being let.
  6. Following the completion of the complaint, the landlord and resident agreed to an appointment on 12 September 2022 to complete the outstanding bathroom work.
  7. In referring the case to this service, the resident described the outstanding issues to the complaint as the length of time the landlord had taken to complete repairs to the bathroom and the poor quality of the work completed. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. Paragraph 10 of the tenancy agreement relates to the landlord’s responsibilities for repairs and maintenance of the property. This states that the landlord will “maintain the structure and exterior of the dwelling.”
  2. Paragraph 38 of the tenancy agreement states that the tenant agrees to allow the landlord access to the property in order to undertake inspections and repairs.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy categorises its repair types as ‘Emergency’ (attend within 24 hours), ‘Routine’ (attend within 20 calendar days or at an appointment convenient for the tenant), and ‘Planned’ (attend within 90 calendar days). Planned repairs are defined by the landlord as “larger, non-urgent repairs, such as plastering a big area of wall.”
  4. In regard to repair appointments that result in no access, the policy states that “in the event of the tenant failing to provide access, a no access card shall be left. The record shall be held for 7 days to allow the tenant the opportunity to contact us and make a new appointment. Should the tenant fail to make contact the work order shall be cancelled unless it is an emergency.”
  5. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
  6. The complaints policy also states that the landlord will consider offering a complainant a discretionary compensation payment to recognise the “duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience,” and the “seriousness of any other unfair impact.”

Scope of investigation

  1. In his complaint request and correspondence with both the landlord and this service, the resident has stated his dissatisfaction with how his housing transfer request had been handled by the landlord.
  2. It is not within the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to make orders on a landlord to offer a new property to a resident. Moreover, Under Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to an application for rehousing made to a local authority. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, the award of points or banding fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). It is advised that the resident contact the LGSCO if he wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint.
  4. As part of his complaint the resident has disputed that the property was handed over to him in a lettable state. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  5. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this investigation has not considered any specific events prior to September 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in November 2021.

Bathroom repairs

  1. Once it was informed by the resident of the issues in the bathroom, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
  2. The Ombudsman notes it is the resident’s position that the repairs were initially reported in or around August 2020. The Ombudsman does not, however, have records of these initial reports. Following his further reports in December 2020, the landlord then arranged for inspections of the issues in line with its repair responsibilities. It also appropriately took steps to accommodate the resident’s preferred times for attendances.
  3. However, there were clearly delays in assessing what work was required to resolve the issues and further delays in scheduling appointments to complete the work. Between December 2020 and April 2021 work was raised and completed to replace the bathroom taps and flooring, but the work to replace the missing tiles was delayed as further inspections and a survey were required. The landlord then raised work to remove all the tiles, conduct an ant-fungal wash, replace the tiles with sheet splashback and to repaint the remaining walls.
  4. Given that there were large areas of retiling and reflooring identified, it was reasonable for the works to be considered planned works. The landlord’s records show that its contractor attended the property within the 90-day window for planned works, and that it informed the landlord that further inspections were required before it could replace the tiles to address concerns relating to damp/mould and asbestos. However, the evidence does not show that the landlord informed the resident on the status of the works at this time and why the retiling work could not go ahead until the survey and inspections occurred. Moreover, there is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident that there would be a short delay in scheduling an appointment as it was in the process of changing its building contractor.
  5. Given its poor communication and delays, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the inconvenience that this caused. This apology does not, however, fully reflect the impact the delays and poor communication had on the resident, and in the circumstances, there was service failure by the landlord for which compensation is appropriate.
  6. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests compensation from £50 is appropriate for instances of service failure. Service failure can include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. In this instance, and amount of £200 is appropriate, being £100 for the delays, and £100 for the landlord’s poor communications.
  7. The resident has also raised concerns about missed appointments between 16 May 2022 and 14 July 2022. The landlord’s records show that for these appointments, the contractor advised that it had attended the appointments at the scheduled times. It also provided photographic evidence of its attendance and the card it left with the resident. The landlord then contacted the resident to rearrange a suitable appointment date and time in September 2022 to complete the outstanding work. Therefore, based on the evidence, the landlord’s actions for this period were reasonable and in line with its policies.
  8. Additionally, the resident has raised concerns about the time he took off work to accommodate the repair appointments. While it is understandably inconvenient for residents to have to take time off work for such appointments, as per the tenancy agreement, residents are expected to provide reasonable access to the landlord’s staff and contractors as required and the landlord would not be expected to compensate for this. The landlord would only be expected to provide compensation if appointments were cancelled without giving notice. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider offering compensation for the resident’s time off work in this instance.

Complaints handling

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 10 October 2021 and the stage one complaint response was sent on 29 November 2021; 26 working days outside of its published timescale of 10 working days. Additionally, the resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 15 December 2021, however, the landlord did not respond to this request. The resident then requested to raise a new complaint into the issue on 9 March 2022. The landlord escalated the original complaint and provided a stage two complaint response on 6 April 2022; 58 working days outside of its published timescale of 20 working days. These delays were not acknowledged by the landlord in its complaint responses.
  2. Moreover, the complaint responses did not specifically address the elements of the complaint raised by the resident. While the landlord gave a general apology for the delays, the inconvenience this had caused, and confirmed what outstanding repairs it would undertake; the only specific aspect it addressed was whether the property was handed over to the resident in a lettable standard. The stage two response also did not represent a review of how it had handled the complaint, or address the outstanding issues of the complaint described by the resident.
  3. The landlord’s failure to provide an adequate response within a reasonable timeframe would have caused frustration for the resident, as well as time and trouble in chasing it up. In the circumstances, this amounted to maladministration, for which additional compensation is appropriate.
  4. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests compensation from £100 is appropriate for instances of maladministration. Based on the landlord’s failure to provide either complaint response within its published timescales, for not responding to the resident’s escalation request, for not properly addressing the elements of the resident’s complaint within its responses, and for the stage two response not being a comprehensive review of how it responded to the resident’s complaint, an amount of £300 is appropriate to recognise the impact caused on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in his bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling. 

Orders

  1. For its service failures and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £500. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this service when payment has been made.