Wolverhampton City Council (202313433)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202313433
Wolverhampton City Council
31 October 2024
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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- responsive repairs.
- the resident’s request for an adaptation.
- communal repairs.
- tree management.
- grounds maintenance.
- The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Background
- The resident is a secure tenant under a tenancy agreement dated 8 February 2008. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has a diagnosis of Kippel Feil syndrome in her spine and osteoarthritis in her right knee. The resident said she uses a wheelchair for the purpose of bathing and moving around her property. The landlord’s records show that it has the resident’s vulnerabilities recorded as exceptional special need and physical impairment.
- The landlord has appointed a single point of contact for the resident due to what the landlord describes as, long standing, high and persistent levels of contact. The resident is allowed to contact the landlord to report emergency repairs. For other issues, the landlord has an arrangement in place to call the resident each week to discuss any concerns she might have with her tenancy. The landlord says that the resident use the single point of contact and continues to contact the customer service team and send detailed text messages. The landlord has informed the resident that it will not respond to other communication outside the current arrangements.
- On 4 July 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord saying that she would like to complain about the following issues:
- grounds maintenance – the shrub beds were full of rotten shrubs, there was overgrowth of the hedges over the top of the fence causing light restriction, the tree canopy was overhanging and needed cutting back, the roots for the conifer tree outside the resident’s property were showing, there was rubbish on the pathway
- building – there was water coming down the side of the building from the roof, there were cracks on the outside wall, there was a water stain on the brickwork and water on the paving
- patio door and facia strip – the facia strip on her patio door was missing, the patio door was not wide enough to get her wheelchair and furniture through
- garage – there was moss and weeds growing out of the garage gutters
- garage door – the door was difficult to open due to being rusty, the frame was damaged
- On 18 August 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 response which said:
Patio door
- it had carried out a number of inspections and found the patio door to be in working condition, as per the manufacturer’s instructions
- it asked the resident to let the landlord know if the door had developed a recent fault and it would arrange a further inspection
Garage door
- it had carried out a number of inspections on the garage door which had confirmed it was in good working condition as per the manufacturer’s instructions
Manhole covers
- it had inspected the manhole covers and there was no evidence of broken covers or debris causing them to lift
Tenancy officer
- the landlord advised the tenancy officer was scheduled to visit the resident on 18 August 2023 to discuss any grounds maintenance or tenancy issues
Structural
- the landlord said it was unable to see the photographs the resident had sent with her message
- it asked the resident to resend the photographs
- it would review the photographs once received
- it had not received any reports from other residents about these issues
Trees
- it said that all the trees located on communal land close to the resident’s property were included within the landlord’s tree management programme
- it was a rolling programme which included inspecting the trees every 2 years
- if any works were identified from the inspections these were completed on a ward-by-ward basis throughout the city over a 4-year period
- it confirmed the trees close to the resident’s property were next due to be inspected between December 2023 and February 2024
- any identified works would be completed when the tree works programme returned to the ward in July 2025
- following the request for an additional inspection, the lawson cypress tree located next to the resident’s block was surveyed in September 2022
- the inspection confirmed the tree to be in good condition with no sign of defects visible at the time
Lighting
- the landlord confirmed that it had raised a job for an electrician to look at the communal lighting and the appointment would take place on 22 August 2023
- The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint on or around 20 November 2023, in which she said:
Patio door
- she did not agree that the patio door was in a working condition and that it was wobbly and had become marked as a result of her having to squeeze her wheelchair through it
Garage door
- the resident was unable to open the door because it was rusted
- the resident said she had to wear splints on both wrists because of rheumatoid arthritis which reduced her strength with which she was able to lift
- she had to stand on a ladder to open the garage door
- the landlord’s contractor had inspected the door which it had struggled to open
- the contractor had offered to spray the door with WD40, which the resident felt was unreasonable
- the resident said she did not have a key to the garage door as this had been lost
Structural
- the resident included photographs of the water damage and cracks to the brickwork
Trees
- the resident said she had not complained about the health of the trees or suggested it had defects
- the resident stated she was not happy about the size of the tree and proximity to her building
- the resident stated the tree was causing cracks to appear in the brickwork
- The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 11 December 2023, in which it said:
Patio door
- it had carried out a number of inspections and found the patio door to be in good working order and it fulfilled its intended purpose
- its contractor had inspected on 2 December 2023 when they serviced the door and it had been left in good working order
- the operative had measured the door and the resident’s wheelchair and confirmed there was enough tolerance either side for the wheelchair to go through
Garage door
- it had inspected the garage door in November 2023
- it had fitted new springs and a new set of rollers
- the garage door was left in good working order
- it had raised a job for a lock change, which the resident may have to pay for
- the repair team would be in touch with the resident to confirm the appointment
Structure of the flat – the cracks
- it confirmed the building was of sound structure
- it had not received any reports from other residents about this issue
- it is common for seasonal temperature variations to cause minor movement which can cause appearance of cracks but this does not affect the structural safety of the building
- it would undertake routine monitoring and condition surveys as appropriate
Trees
- the trees are inspected on a cyclical basis and any identified works are progressed accordingly
- the trees in question were on communal land managed by the landlord
- it inspected the trees every 2 years by its specialist ground’s maintenance contractor
- the trees were next due for inspection between 15 December 2023 and 1 February 2024
- In communication with this service the resident said that the following items are still outstanding:
- the patio door is too narrow
- the manhole cover surround needs repointing
- the landlord had not trimmed the trees
- the storm drains on the estate need clearing because they are blocked with leaves and moss
- As a resolution the resident said she would like the landlord to:
- complete the outstanding repairs
- trim and maintain the trees on a more regular basis
- increase the amount of grounds maintenance on the estate
Assessment and findings
Scope of the investigation
- In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman has limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint dated 4 July 2023, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 11 December 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service.
- The Ombudsman is aware that the resident raised further issues with the landlord following the conclusion of her complaint, including blockages to the drains on the estate. These issues have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process and, therefore, do not form part of this investigation. The resident can address these issues directly with the landlord. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme.
The landlord’s handling of responsive repairs
- Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on landlords to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of properties. Landlords are responsible for making repairs that are lasting and effective in all cases. Landlords should complete repairs in a timely manner to avoid impacting the resident’s enjoyment and use of their property.
- The landlord’s repair policy says it will log a responsive repair as either an emergency, routine repair or a programmed repair. The policy sets out the following timescales:
- emergency repairs – the landlord will aim to attend to the emergency repair within 24 hours
- non-emergency repairs – the landlord will aim to complete all routine repairs within 20 working days
- programmed repairs – the landlord will aim to complete programmed repairs within 90 days from the initial service request or property inspection
- inspections – when an inspection is required the landlord will aim to complete this with 20 working days
Patio door
- Between January and December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord on 10 occasions regarding her patio door to report that it was not wide enough. On some occasions the resident contacted the landlord multiple times in 1 day. The landlord’s records show that it inspected the patio doors on 17 February 2023, 14 March 2023 and 2 December 2023 and found the doors to be in good working order. The only repair which was identified was a loose plastic strip on the outside of the patio door. The landlord noted that this did not affect the use of the door. The Ombudsman has seen that there was a delay of almost 9 months in completing this repair. However, while this was not consistent with the landlord’s policy, there is no evidence to show that this would have had an adverse impact on the resident.
- The resident had repeatedly asked the landlord to widen the patio door so that she could move furniture in and out of her property easily. She also said that she used a wheelchair inside the property and, although she did not use it to go outside, she was concerned that her mobility would worsen over time and she may need to use the wheelchair outside in the future. The landlord said that it measured the door during its inspections on 14 March 2023 and 2 December 2023 and found there was sufficient room for the resident’s wheelchair to go through. The landlord informed the resident if she required the doorway to be widened this was an adaptation and not a repair.
- The Ombudsman recognises that the resident is vulnerable with mobility issues. It was appropriate for the landlord to recommend that the resident obtain an occupational therapist assessment in relation to the patio doors. In summary, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to her patio door were appropriate and consistent with its policy and procedures.
Cracks and water on the outside wall of the building
- The Ombudsman is unable to determine exactly when the resident first reported her concerns about the cracks and water on the external wall. The records show that she contacted the landlord on 14 March 2023 to request an update in relation to an earlier inspection. It is not clear when this inspection took place and the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s inspection report. However, there is a record dated 22 May 2023 confirming that an inspection had taken place and the landlord had not identified anything structurally wrong with the building, which the landlord confirmed in its complaint responses.
- The resident contacted the landlord again on 14 December 2023 to report the external cracks again. The landlord’s records show that it inspected the wall on 16 January 2024 and thereafter raised a repair to cut out and replace 4 bricks on the wall. This work was completed on 2 February 2024. This was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s policy.
Garage door
- Between January 2023 and December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord on 7 occasions regarding her garage door, sometimes making as many as 11 calls in 1 day. She reported that the door was stiff and she struggled to open it without standing on something. She explained that she had arthritis in her wrists which exacerbated the problem. The landlord’s records show that its contractor inspected the garage door on 16 May 2023. The records show that there was nothing wrong with the existing door, apart from it being difficult to open, which the contractor said it could repair. The landlord said the resident said she needed a new garage door and refused the work.
- In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that it had inspected the garage door again in November 2023 and fitted new springs and rollers, which had rusted. The garage door was left in good working order. The Ombudsman can not hold the landlord accountable for the delay in completing these repairs because of the resident’s refusal to accept them in May 2023.
- In her stage 2 escalation the resident informed the landlord that she had lost her key for the garage door and requested the landlord change the locks. In its stage 2 response the landlord informed the resident it had raised a job for a lock change, which would be a recharge to the resident. The landlord’s website says that it will recharge for changing locks because of lost or stolen keys. It was therefore appropriate of the landlord to recharge the resident in this case.
- In summary, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s repairs in that it logged, inspected and completed the repairs in a timely manner which was consistent with its policy.
The landlord’s handling of a request for an adaptation
- On 14 March 2023 the resident called the landlord several times regarding her front and patio doors. The resident said that the doors were not wide enough. She asked the landlord to widen her patio doors so that she could move a table into her flat, she also said that she required the door to be wider because of her disability and her use of a wheelchair.
- The landlord inspected the patio door on the same date and confirmed that the door was in working order and wide enough for the resident to go in and out of. The landlord informed the resident that it would not be able to widen the door, this would be an adaptation and not a repair. It recommended that the resident make a self referral to adult social care for an occupational therapist (OT) assessment. Once the resident had obtained the assessment the landlord would consider the request further. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
- On 31 August 2023 the resident had an OT assessment in relation to her request to widen her patio door. The OT assessment confirmed that the resident was able to negotiate the rear step in and out of her property without difficulty. It also confirmed that the resident had alternative access to her home via the front entrance. The outcome of the assessment was that the OT did not consider the resident’s request to be an adaptation need and the independent living service was therefore unable to support the resident’s request.
- The OT also assessed the resident’s access to her garage on the same date. The OT noted that the garage door was a maintenance issue which the landlord would be responsible for. The OT said that it had contacted the landlord to request it repair or replace the garage door.
- It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord acted appropriately in asking the resident to obtain an OT assessment for the patio doors. This provided the landlord with the relevant evidence to decide whether any adaptations were needed. The Ombudsman has noted the resident’s concerns that her health may deteriorate in the future and she may have to use a wheelchair outside her property. If that should happen, the resident could request another OT assessment. Dependant on the outcome of any future assessment, the landlord can decide on whether an adaptation is needed or not.
- In conclusion, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for an adaptation.
The landlord’s handling of communal repairs
- The resident did not refer to communal repairs in her initial complaint dated 4 July 2023. However, the records show that the resident made the landlord aware of some communal repairs during the complaint process which the landlord has responded to in its complaint responses. The Ombudsman has therefore considered the landlord’s responses to these issues.
Communal lighting
- On 27 June 2023 the resident reported that a security light on the path outside her property was not working. The landlord updated the resident and informed her that it had ordered the lights and the landlord would install them once received. It is unclear from the records when the landlord completed this repair.
- In July 2023 and August 2023 the resident reported issues with communal lighting again. On this occasion the resident reported that there was a total of 6 communal lights which were in need of repair. It is not clear from the information provided to this service whether this included the same light which the resident reported in June 2023.
- In its stage 1 response the landlord said that it had raised a repair for an electrician to inspect the communal lighting and it had made an appointment for 22 August 2023. This service has been unable to establish when the landlord completed this repair, however, the resident contacted the landlord again on 20 December 2022 about the lighting, which would indicate the landlord had not fully resolved the repair by this date.
- On 15 July 2024 the resident confirmed to this service that the landlord had repaired the communal lighting and this was no longer an issue.
- The landlord inspects its low-rise blocks on a quarterly basis. The landlord has provided evidence that inspections of the resident’s block were conducted on 20 December 2022, 13 April 2023, 20 July 2023 and 12 February 2024. It is unclear whether this inspection would include inspection of the exterior communal lighting or not. It is also unclear whether the repairs reported by the resident related to the same lights or different lights each time. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to assess whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable or not.
Manhole
- In August 2023 the resident informed the landlord that the concrete around the manhole covers close to her property required repointing. The resident was concerned that this would be a trip hazard.
- In its complaint response the landlord said it had inspected the manhole covers and did not find any evidence of broken covers or debris causing them to lift. The Ombudsman is of the opinion that it was reasonable of the landlord to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified staff.
- In conclusion, the Ombudsman is of the opinion there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communal repairs.
The landlord’s handling of tree management
- The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s management of the trees in the locality of her home, which she has repeatedly reported over a number of years. In her complaint she referred to the following:
- a large conifer tree outside her property
- the roots from the conifer tree showing, which the resident said she was concerned may cause damage to the structure of the building
- In accordance with its tree management programme the landlord is required to maintain the trees in the communal areas of the resident’s block and external spaces. The landlord is obliged to ensure that anyone on the grounds is safe from dangerous trees or part of trees, and from trees causing damage to property.
- In January 2023, February 2023 and March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report her concerns about a tree which was growing outside her property. She said that the tree was overgrown and the roots were showing. She said that she was worried about subsidence to the building. She asked the landlord to cut the tree down. The landlord informed the resident that the trees were part of a tree management programme but it would ask its contractor to check the tree when it was next in the area.
- In its complaint response the landlord confirmed that, following a request from the resident, it conducted an additional inspection to the tree. The inspection had confirmed the tree to be in good condition with no sign of defect. Further to this, the landlord has said that it inspected the trees within the location of the resident’s property in April 2024.
- In this case the landlord has acted fairly and proportionately in response to the resident’s concerns. It did so by inspecting the tree outside the resident’s property in line with its tree management programme. It informed the resident in its complaint response that there were no identified issues with the tree. It will continue to monitor the tree as part of its ongoing tree management programme.
- While the resident did not agree with the landlord’s response, it was reasonable of the landlord to rely on the expertise of its qualified tree contractor regarding the condition of the tree and the exposed roots. This meant the landlord had complied with its obligation to ensure that people and property were safe from dangerous trees or parts of trees on its communal land.
- In conclusion, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of tree management.
The landlord’s handling of grounds maintenance
- The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s maintenance of the communal areas outside her home, which she has repeatedly reported over a number of years. She said:
- the shrub beds were full of rotten shrubs
- the shrubs, hedges and tree canopy were overgrown
- there was rubbish on the pathway
- there was moss and weeds in the garage guttering
- The landlord said that it operates a grounds maintenance programme on its estates as follows:
- grass cutting – to be completed on 12 occasions between March to October – approximately every 21 days
- hedges – to receive 1 visit this year– to commence in September
- shrub beds – to receive 4 visits this year – March, May, July and September
- hard surfaces – to receive 2 visits this year – April and September
- garage site – to receive 4 visits this year – March, May, July and September
- litter collection – to receive 12 visits every month
- In relation to hedges, the landlord’s website says that it will maintain hedges on its estates once per year, starting from September onwards. It aims to conduct the required work on all contracted hedges within its timescales, however this work can be delayed due to nesting birds. In such circumstances the landlord says it will re-visit after the birds have left.
- In her complaint, the resident said that the landlord should have cut the hedges in June, which it had not done. The resident had highlighted an extract from a letter from the landlord dated 2020 in which it had outlined its grounds maintenance programme. The extract said that the landlord would cut the hedges back in June each year. It reasonable to assume that this programme will have changed since 2020.
- With regards to shrub bed pruning, the landlord’s website says it will process leaves and branches through a chipping machine and distributed on to the site where the work was done, which is more environmentally friendly. If it cannot process material in this way the landlord will arrange for its removal.
- The landlord monitors the standard of grounds maintenance via its estate inspections, which it says it will conduct on a quarterly basis on its low-rise blocks. The landlord has provided evidence that it inspected the resident’s block on 20 December 2022, 13 April 2023, 20 July 2023 and 12 February 2024. On these occasions the landlord recorded that the grounds maintenance was to a good standard. It would appear from the records that there was a gap of 7 months between July 2023 and February 2024 when no inspection took place. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s procedure.
- The Ombudsman understands that employees may have time off work for holidays or sickness. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to ensure that it maintain a service it has an obligation to carry out. This was a failure by the landlord.
- The resident reported that moss and weeds were blocking the gutters on the garages. The landlord said that it carries out a visit to the garage site on a quarterly basis as part of its grounds maintenance programme. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord inspected the garages or that it raised a job to unblock the gutters. This was a failure by the landlord. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order for the landlord to inspect the garage guttering and complete any work it finds.
- As a resolution, the resident said she would like the landlord to increase its grounds maintenance programme. While the resident does not feel that the service provided by the landlord is sufficient, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord is entitled to run the maintenance programme the way it is. There is no obligation on it to change this.. However, the landlord should ensure that inspections are carried out on a regular basis to ensure that its contractor completes the works to a satisfactory standard.
- In conclusion, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the grounds maintenance because:
- it missed a quarterly inspection of the communal areas as per its grounds maintenance programme
- it had not inspected the garages as per its grounds maintenance programme
- The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £50 and £100 when there is evidence of a service failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order that the landlord pay the resident £50 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused in the landlord’s handling of grounds maintenance. There is no evidence of significant impact on the resident which is why £50 as opposed to £100 has been ordered.
Summary and conclusion
- The Ombudsman recognises that the frequency and content of the resident’s letters and contacts would likely be difficult for the landlord to manage and respond to. The landlord has taken steps to manage this by implementing a single of point of contact (SPOC).
- Overall, while the Ombudsman has outlined some service failure within this report, there is evidence that the landlord responded appropriately to the majority of the resident’s reports. It has remained in regular communication with the resident by offering a weekly telephone call with her SPOC. This enables the resident to report any new repairs, obtain updates in relation to existing repairs and discuss any other issues regarding her tenancy.
- There is evidence that the landlord responded quickly and appropriately to the majority of the resident’s repairs and enquiries. It provided timely responses to the resident’s contacts in an effort to address the resident’s concerns. These actions were reasonable and in line with good practice and customer service. The Ombudsman also notes the landlord’s clear and consistent record keeping with concise notes, emails and repairs information provided.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
- The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of being made and will provide its response within 10 working days of being acknowledged. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the escalation of the complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of being acknowledged.
- The resident made her initial complaint on 4 July 2023. On 17 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to enquire if it had received her complaint. The landlord confirmed it had received the resident’s letter and would be sending it to the landlord’s complaint department. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 18 August 2023, which was 25 working days later. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022).
- Paragraph 5.6 of the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. In this case the landlord did not address the resident’s complaint that it had not investigated the moss and weeds which the resident said were blocking the garage gutters. This was a failure by the landlord.
- The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on or around 20 November 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 21 November 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 11 December 2023 which was 15 working days later. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
- In conclusion, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has made this finding because:
- the landlord failed to recognise and respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure and the Code
- the landlord failed to address all points raised by the resident in its complaint responses in line with its complaint’s procedure and the Code
- The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £50 and £100 when there is evidence of a service failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order that the landlord pay the resident £50 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Again, whilst the delays likely had some impact on the resident – there is no evidence that was significant.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of responsive repairs.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the request for an adaptation.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of communal repairs.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of tree management.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of grounds maintenance.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Orders
- The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
- pay the resident £100 compensation which is broken down as follows:
- £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of grounds maintenance
- £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint
- pay the resident £100 compensation which is broken down as follows:
The compensation must be paid direct to the resident
- Inspect the garage gutters and complete any identified works
- The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.