Wolverhampton City Council (202322317)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322317

Wolverhampton City Council

24 April 2025

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 the resident’s reports of:
1. Photographs on her property file, which do not reflect the current condition of the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced in 2017. The landlord is a local council. This is a 3 bed terraced house. The landlord has not recorded any household vulnerabilities but the resident reports having a child with severe disabilities.
On 23 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord via email. She said:
1. She was concerned that the landlord held inaccurate information about her property. There were inaccurate images stored on her property file.
2. She had raised concerns about the poor condition of the property in 2017 when she viewed it. She took photographs of both the inside and outside.
3. She was concerned that the property had not been let to her in a “void lettable standard” when she moved into the house in 2017.
4. She attached photographs of the property in 2017 and in its current improved condition.
5. She spent £5800 on the improvement works and wanted to be reimbursed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 30 August 2023.
The resident emailed further photographs to the landlord on 11 September 2023. She sent both the photographs from 2017, and photographs of the current condition of the property with her improvement works. She said the landlord’s property file photographs were incorrect and that she wanted her personal data amended.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 19 September 2023. It said:
1. It had previously investigated the matters related to the improvement works on 3 occasions, as had this Service so it would not be investigating this again.
2. The photographs of the property sent to the resident, were taken by the landlord on 12 June 2017. They were indicative of the property condition and were not a full schedule of dilapidations. There was no evidence that the photographs had been manipulated and they were similar to the photographs the resident had taken.
3. The photographs would remain on the property file. They did not constitute personal data, as there were no images of the resident or any living person.
4. It was clear from the resident’s photographs that she had carried out a range of enhancements to her home. However, the resident had chosen to have the works done and they were not the landlord’s responsibility. As it had previously advised, it would not be reimbursing her for the improvements she had made.
5. As her complaint has been considered on multiple occasions, including external review by the Housing Ombudsman, it confirmed she had exhausted the complaints process and these matters would not be considered further.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 28 September 2023. She said that her complaint was about the landlord holding inaccurate photographs on her property file and its refusal to update them. She also sent us the original photographs from 2017 and her updated photographs, showing her improvement works.
She said she was concerned that if she terminated the tenancy, the landlord may charge her for the poor condition of the property, based on its photos from 2017.
She said that she had contacted the Information Commissioner’s office (ICO) regarding the complaint, but it had told her to contact us, as there was no data breach.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident had complained about the original condition of the property in 2017. She also requested compensation for her improvement works. Although we understand the resident’s frustration, we will not be able to investigate these matters. This is because it would not be proportionate to investigate matters which are over a year old. Further, the Ombudsman has already investigated and determined the resident’s complaint regarding her improvement works and compensation request.
As such, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the photographs held on her property file.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports that photographs on the property file do not reflect the current condition of the property

The resident’s tenancy agreement and tenancy information say that when terminating a tenancy the following will apply:
1. Residents must give a minimum of 4 weeks’ notice in writing.
2. They must give vacant possession and not leave any rubbish or items inside or outside the property.
3. Before residents move out, it will arrange a date and time with the resident to inspect the property. It asks residents to leave the property clean and tidy.
4. The landlord will charge residents if it has to remove rubbish or belongings. It may also charge residents if there is damage to the property, apart from “wear and tear.” It may also charge for a deep clean, if necessary. The charges for each of these can range from £50 to over £200.
The landlord’s management of voids procedure says:
1. When it receives a notice to terminate a tenancy, its staff should refer to the tenancy termination procedure.
2. Where possible, it will secure the empty property on the day it receives the keys.
3. It will take photographs of all rechargeable damage.
It was appropriate that in its complaint response, the landlord told the resident that its photographs did not constitute a data breach. This is not something that the Ombudsman would investigate, however, the ICO had already informed the resident of this.
It was also appropriate that it told the resident that the photographs would remain on file. It clarified that the photographs were from 12 June 2017 and did not reflect the current condition of the property.
It also noted that her photographs showed a range of improvements she had carried out to the house.
Further, the landlord’s tenancy agreement states that it will arrange an inspection date prior to moving out, when residents terminate a tenancy. The resident could reasonably expect that the landlord would note the property in its current condition, during this inspection.
Additionally, the landlord has told us that voids inspectors take their own photographs of void properties when they become lettable. This is in line with its void management procedure.
Also, the landlord’s management of voids procedure says that it will try to secure properties on the day residents return the keys, so the resident could reasonably expect that the property would remain in the condition she left it.
As the landlord abided by its policies and tenancy agreement, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made.” It responds to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
It says that it will let residents know if each element of the complaint is upheld or not.
Its complaints policy says that it cannot deal with a complaint which has already been fully investigated, in line with its policy, when the issue took place more than 6 months ago.
On 23 August 2023 the resident raised a new complaint about the landlord refusing to update the photographs it had on the property file. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate this element of her complaint, as per its policy, regardless of the outcome.
It was not appropriate that the landlord told the resident she had raised the complaint before and that it refused to take the matter further. It would have been reasonable to issue a stage 1 response to the resident regarding this matter, in line with its policy. The fact, that it did not, caused the resident frustration.
As the landlord did not follow its complaints policy, a finding of service failure is made, along with orders for redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of photographs on the property file, which do not reflect the current condition of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The apology should be in writing.
2. Pay the resident £50 for the frustration and inconvenience in pursuing the complaint. This should be paid into the resident’s bank account and not offset against any arrears (if applicable).
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.