Wolverhampton City Council (202206083)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206083

Wolverhampton City Council

24 September 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 the resident’s:
1. eviction from the property.
2. concerns about asbestos, and repairs to the bathroom, boiler, front door.
3. concerns about the gas safety check completed in December 2022.
4. concerns about the external post box.
5. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
6. the complaint.
We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord until July 2024, at which time she was evicted following court proceedings.
The landlord recorded on its system that the resident is autistic and suffers from anxiety. It also recorded a number of instructions around arranging and attending appointments at the resident’s property. This included that it should attend appointments at the precise time agreed.
The landlord had also put in place a single point of contact (SPOC) for the resident. It said that it initially arranged fortnightly telephone calls to the resident through the SPOC. It said this arrangement continued until June 2023, when the resident requested it be changed due to ongoing legal action by the landlord. It said that following this it communicated with the resident via letter.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy outlines repairs response times, depending on their urgency:
1. fix it emergency – within 24 hours.
2. fix it at your convenience – within 20 calendar days.
3. fix it planned – within 90 calendar days.
The landlord’s ASB policy details how it will approach and investigate reports of ASB. It outlines that it will investigate all forms of hate incidents, verbal abuse and ASB. It says it will use a range of preventative measures, support, or legal action to tackle ASB. It says that the actions it will take will be proportionate to the seriousness, impact and frequency of the behaviour and the level of risk posed to those affected.
The landlord’s annual gas safety check procedure outlines the steps that it will take to ensure that all of its properties have safe gas installations.
We have not been provided with details of the landlord’s asbestos management plan from the time relevant to this complaint. However, its current asbestos management plan sets out that the asbestos register and relevant reports must be consulted prior to instructing repair work. It says that, if it considers insufficient information is available, it will then request an appropriate survey.
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2-stage process. It aims to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The resident made a previous complaint to the landlord about a number of issues, including its handling of repairs and reports of ASB and its method of communicating with her. The landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response in relation to these matters on 27 August 2021. We considered the resident’s concerns about its handling of this complaint under case reference 202016311 and issued our determination in December 2023.
In June 2022 following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord about the resident’s concerns, including its handling of ASB issues, and her reports that she was not receiving post. Between June 2022 and January 2023, the landlord communicated to us and the resident that it considered issues she had raised had already exhausted its complaints procedure.
In March 2023 we wrote to the landlord. We outlined our view that the response of 27 August 2021 did not cover all the issues the resident had now raised. We asked that it provide the resident with a complaint response to these matters and set out her ongoing concerns as:
1. the time taken to complete repairs to her bathroom.
2. handling of further issues of ASB since August 2021.
3. post going missing.
4. a gas safety check of December 2022, specifically that contractors had not checked smoke alarms.
5. issues with her hot water.
On 12 April 2023, as part of an update letter to the resident, the landlord said that mediation in relation to ASB had been closed. This was because the resident had confirmed she did not want to pursue this. It said she should report any new ASB issues to her SPOC so these could be investigated. It noted the resident had raised concerns in January 2023 about the gas safety check and that she had requested reassurance that her smoke and carbon monoxide alarms had been checked at this time. The landlord said it had undertaken a further visit on 16 January 2023 to do so. It set out repairs needed to the resident’s bathroom and to investigate her concerns about hot water. It said:
1. access was required to the property to complete the repairs.
2. it would continue to liaise with her outside the complaints process.
Following further correspondence from us, on 20 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident in respect of the issues outlined in our letter of 21 March 2023. The landlord said:
1. it could inspect the resident’s outstanding repair concerns on 31 July 2023. It asked the resident to confirm this appointment was acceptable.
2. it had not received any ASB reports from the resident since December 2022. It said she should report any ongoing concerns so these could be investigated.
3. a gas safety check had been completed on 13 December 2022, when the carbon monoxide alarm was confirmed to be present and working.
4. its contractor had attended on 16 January 2023 to check all smoke alarms and the carbon monoxide alarm were working to provide the resident with reassurance.
5. it had attended on 20 March 2023 to inspect the boiler issue and noted the resident’s concerns about the short delay in hot water coming through. It said the resident’s ongoing concerns about water running cold after a short period could be investigated when it attended in respect of the shower repair.
6. it could investigate the resident’s concerns about post if she provided further information.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 15 September 2023. In addition to matters previously raised, she said:
1. no progress had been made towards fitting her front door since April 2023.
2. the landlord had not checked for asbestos prior to completing shower repairs.
3. she had not reported ASB issues to the landlord since December 2022 as it had not responded to her earlier reports or taken action against her neighbour.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 October 2023. It said:
1. it had offered to undertake an asbestos inspection during its stage 1 complaint response.
2. it could attend on 18 October 2023 to complete an inspection and, if required, asbestos sampling in the bathroom.
3. it was not unusual for a combination boiler to take a short time to heat water. It said, if the resident was still experiencing issues with her heating, it would arrange to attend to investigate if she provided her availability.
4. the resident had made no reports of ASB since December 2022. It said that all required actions were taken following the last report. It said mediation was also closed as the resident had said she did not wish to progress this.
5. it was still awaiting confirmation of the resident’s availability to allow it to complete the front door replacement. It asked that she confirm her availability for an appointment on 20 October 2023.
6. it had visited the resident’s block of flats and was unable to identify any issues with the post boxes.
7. it noted the resident’s concerns that smoke alarms had not been checked during the gas safety check and had reattended to provide reassurance. It said it had confirmed the call the contractor received during the inspection was work related and needed to be answered.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

Eviction from the property

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.e of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
The resident has raised concerns about her eviction from the property. While her concerns about her eviction are acknowledged, the evidence suggests that she reasonably had the opportunity to raise her concerns about the landlord’s actions in her defence as part of the possession proceedings. It follows that this complaint does not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42.e of the Scheme.

Scope of investigation

As set out earlier, concerns the resident raised about the landlord’s handling of a number of issues up to August 2021 have been considered under our earlier investigation. As such this investigation is focussed on events since 27 August 2021.

Concerns about asbestos, and repairs to the bathroom, boiler and front door

Concerns about asbestos

Records show the landlord completed a shower screen repair in June 2022. Following this, the resident raised concerns that it had not checked for asbestos prior to completing the repair. The landlord responded to these concerns in its update letter to her of 8 August 2022. It said that when it undertook any repairs, asbestos information on the property would be obtained to ensure work was completed in line with its policies. It said it may require an external asbestos surveying company to complete a survey where required. This information outlined steps it should take in line with its asbestos management plan. But it did not respond to the resident’s specific concern, which was that work had been completed without appropriate checks. Instead of providing general information at this time, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm whether it had taken appropriate action to check asbestos information prior to the work.
In evidence provided to us the landlord included a management survey of the property completed in 2011. This included an asbestos survey which said the bathroom had a “non asbestos textured coated ceiling”. The landlord could reasonably have provided the resident with more detail about information it already held on file. It might have allayed the resident’s concerns. Her email to the landlord in July 2023 stated that she was waiting for an “urgent health [and] safety check in the bathroom for asbestos”.
In communication with the resident in July 2023 the landlord offered to inspect her concerns about asbestos. That was reasonable. But while it told her on 18 July 2023 that it would be in contact shortly to offer an appointment, we have seen no evidence it took steps to do so until nearly 3 months later. Having offered to undertake this inspection the landlord should reasonably have taken earlier steps to arrange this. The delay in doing so was a failing by the landlord.

Repairs to the bathroom

When escalating her complaint in September 2023 the resident said the landlord had sent an email asking about her availability for an appointment on 28 July 2023 in relation to bathroom repairs. She said, although she did not respond to this email, its contractor attended anyway. Records provided by the landlord do not contain details of its email to the resident or its attempted attendance. That was a failing in record keeping. It assured the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that it would not use this appointment as evidence to substantiate that she had not been providing access. But, given the landlord had recorded a number of steps it should take to agree appointments, it should reasonably have apologised for attending without agreement. That it did not do so was a failing. The resident had explained why she needed it to agree appointments and the landlord was aware she had autism and anxiety issues. It should reasonably have ensured appropriate steps were taken to agree attendance and avoid causing the resident unnecessary concern and distress.

Boiler concerns

Records we have seen show the landlord raised a repair on 14 March 2023 about an issue the resident was experiencing with hot water in her kitchen. This was recorded as a ‘fix at your convenience’ repair, The landlord attended this issue on 20 March 2023, which was within target response time of 20 working days. Later, at the end of April 2023, it explained to the resident there would be a short delay in hot water reaching the tap while the boiler heated up. However, in May 2023 the resident told the landlord that it took “minutes” rather than “seconds” for hot water to come through to the tap. But repair records we have been provided do not record any follow up repair being raised. The landlord should reasonably have done so in order to respond to the resident’s concerns.
Around this time the resident told the landlord of issue she was experiencing with her heating. While it sent an email to the resident to confirm that gas engineers would attend on 24 May 2023, records do not detail this appointment. Because of this, it is unclear whether it related to the resident’s concerns about her boiler/heating, or if it even went ahead. That was a failing in record keeping. The landlord cannot adequately demonstrate that it was responding appropriately to the resident’s concerns at this time. In its stage 1 response of 20 July 2023, it offered to attend to investigate the resident’s boiler concerns on 31 July 2023. But that was nearly 3 months after the resident had raised these concerns. That the landlord did not do so earlier was a failing. While it noted in its update to the resident of June 2023 that a boiler repair was outstanding, it did not offer an appointment for this work.
We acknowledge that there some challenges the landlord experienced in communicating with the resident. It was in the process of taking court action against her regarding access to the property to complete a repair to a soil pipe. That issue is not the subject of this investigation. But we note that SPOC arrangements previously in placed changed due to his involvement in the court action. However, the landlord should reasonably have taken appropriate steps to ensure it maintained communication with the resident about the other repairs. We acknowledge that in July 2023 it offered the resident access to an independent advocacy service to help in her communication with it. That was a reasonable and appropriate action, given the continued issues around arranging access for works. But the landlord has not provided evidence to show it took adequate steps between May and July 2023 to attempt to arrange an appointment for boiler and hot water repairs. That was a failing.

Front door repairs

In her complaint the resident raised concerns that her front door was meant to be replaced on 13 April 2023 at 11am, but that the contractor attended at 9am instead. The landlord’s update to the resident on 12 April 2023 confirmed that an appointment had been scheduled for following day at 11am. Yet when it responded to the resident’s complaint about this matter, it did not acknowledge the concerns she had raised about the contractor arriving earlier than scheduled. The landlord had made a clear record of the need to ensure its operatives and contractors attended at the scheduled time. Yet, instead of acknowledging and addressing the resident’s concerns about this, it said that it was now waiting for the resident to confirm a suitable appointment.
The evidence shows that the landlord made reasonable efforts to reschedule the appointment to fit the front door from May 2023 onward. The SPOC contacted the resident at that time to enquire about an appropriate date to do so. We have also seen that the landlord requested the resident confirm a suitable date for this work in the update of June 2023. In its stage 1 response of July 2023, it again asked the resident to confirm her availability for this work. Further, in its stage 2 response it asked the resident whether she would be available for this work to be completed on 20 October 2023. However, while that is the case, it should still have acknowledged and apologised for the issues the resident had encountered with the appointment on 13 April 2023. That it did not was a failing.
We note that landlord’s repair records contain no information relating to the front door replacement. It should have appropriately recorded work so that it could adequately monitor progress towards completion. We have also noted that in update letters the landlord referred to telephone conversations the SPOC had with the resident about arranging appointments. While a summary of the calls is contained within the letters, we have seen no contemporaneous note of calls the SPOC made to the resident. That was a further record keeping failing. The landlord should reasonably have made and stored appropriate record of its contact with the resident. These could have provided clearer evidence of the action it was taking to arrange appointments.
Overall, we have found failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos, and repairs to the bathroom, boiler and front door which amount to maladministration. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and with consideration of the circumstances, we have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident. This is aimed at recognising and putting right the impact of its failings, which caused the resident distress, inconvenience and concern.

Concerns about the gas safety check completed in December 2022

The resident raised concerns that the gas safety check completed in December 2022 did not check her smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms. We have seen record of this check, and it notes that smoke alarms were “present” and that carbon monoxide alarms were “satisfactory”. In April 2023 the landlord noted in an update to the resident that she had made contact in January 2023 to request reassurance that smoke alarms had been checked. However, records provided by the landlord do not include this contact by the resident. That was a further record keeping failing by the landlord. It said it had attended the resident’s property on 16 January 2023 to check smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. It said it did so to provide the resident with reassurance. The evidence suggests that this attendance went ahead. However, we have seen no record of it, which is a further record keeping failing. We have also seen evidence, from property records, of work the landlord completed at that time to change the carbon monoxide monitor.
It is acknowledged the resident was concerned that alarms had not been checked during the inspection of December 2022. Although we have seen failings in its record keeping around its subsequent attendance, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to her concerns about the gas safety check of December 2022. Its response to the resident’s concerns about a call the contractor made during the inspection was also reasonable.

Concerns about the external post box

After contact from us in June 2022, the landlord told the resident that she should discuss her concerns about general post with Royal Mail. That response was reasonable as the resident had not provided information about specific concerns about the post box. However, by 21 March 2023 the landlord had been made aware of her specific concerns. These included that the external post box was not secure. When it responded to the stage 1 complaint in July 2023 it asked the resident to provide further information so it could establish if there was any action it could take to address her concerns. But earlier communication in March 2023 had already set this out. This explained the resident’s concerns that the post box could be accessed by placing a hand through the slot. The landlord should reasonably have taken earlier steps to inspect the resident’s concerns about the security of the external post box.
In its stage 2 complaint response of October 2023, it said it had attended the resident’s block of flats and had not identified issues with the post boxes. But this response lacked sufficient detail. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain that it had investigated her specific concern that the post box could be accessed through the slot. The landlord has also provided no record of its attendance to inspect the post boxes, which is a further failing in record keeping. We have found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the external post box. As a result of its failings the resident spent more time and effort chasing it for an appropriate response. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award has been ordered aimed at recognising the impact of its failings on the resident.

Reports of ASB

We have seen evidence that the landlord responded appropriately to the concerns the resident raised in November 2021 about a dispute with her neighbour about the use of her bin. It referred her for mediation, but she later informed it she did not want to proceed with this. Later the resident reported in February 2022 that her neighbour had parked in a way that blocked access to her car. Following this, the landlord noted it had communicated with the neighbour about this. It also directed the resident to the police or highways department for further issues with vehicles in areas not designated for parking. Again, that was an appropriate response by the landlord. The actions taken were also in accordance with the landlord’s policy.
In August 2022 the resident made contact with the landlord again about issues with her neighbour. She requested mediation. Later that month the landlord discussed the issues with the resident, at which time she outlined concerns about harassment, intimidation and racism by her neighbour. While the landlord took steps to arrange mediation there is no evidence it completed a risk assessment. It should reasonably have done so, in line with its ASB policy. This would have helped it to understand the impact of the reported behaviour and the level of risk posed. That it did not do so was a failing, particularly given the nature of the report by the resident and her vulnerabilities. Such an assessment could have helped the landlord to ensure the resident had access to appropriate support.
Records show that the landlord took appropriate steps to speak to the resident’s neighbour during August 2022 to agree the mediation referral. However, in its December 2022 update to the resident, the landlord noted it had been advised she had withdrawn from the mediation process. But, again, the landlord did not make appropriate contemporaneous record of this. That was a further record keeping failing. While we have identified record keeping failings around this, the resident has not disputed that she had withdrawn from mediation.
In her complaint escalation request the resident said that she had not made further reports of ASB as the landlord did not act on her earlier reports. But we have seen evidence the landlord had taken proportionate action by referring her for mediation, which she had requested. However, the landlord should reasonably have completed a risk assessment following her report in August 2022 to ensure appropriate support was offered. We have found service failure by the landlord. With consideration of the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award has been ordered aimed at recognising the impact of this failing.

The complaint

It was apparent the landlord understood the issues the resident raised in June 2022 related to matters that had already exhausted its complaints process. We acknowledge that it was initially unclear that her concerns related to new issues. However, by March 2023 we had clearly set out the resident’s ongoing concerns to the landlord. Despite this, it did not provide its stage 1 response until 20 July 2023. This was well outside the target response time of 10 working days. Instead, it sought to address issues outside of the complaints process, through updates to the resident in April and June 2023. While local resolution is reasonable in some circumstances, in this case a clear request had been made for a complaint response. As set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve resident’s concerns do not result in any unreasonable delay. Nor should they obstruct access to the complaints procedure. By failing to provide a timely response to the issues raised in March 2023 the landlord unreasonably delayed the complaint. That would have caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience and delayed her access to an independent review by the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was timely. However, the officer who responded to the stage 1 complaint also provided this response. That was not in line with the Code, which requires a stage 2 review to be undertaken by a different person. By doing so the landlord missed the opportunity to provide the resident with an independent review of the stage 1 complaint. We have ordered that the landlord remind its complaint handling staff that stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses should be provided by different officers.
We have set out earlier in the report other failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. For instance, it did not acknowledge or apologise for the appointments being attended on dates/times not pre-agreed by the resident. This would have given her the impression it was dismissing her concerns. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have ordered that the landlord make an award to her to recognise the impact of its failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.e of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s concerns about her eviction from the property falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about asbestos, and repairs to the bathroom, boiler, front door.
2. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the gas safety check completed in December 2022.
3. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the external post box.
4. service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
5. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
6. maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified. This apology should be made in line with guidance on apologies contained within the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £700, made up of:
  1. £250 for the impact of failings in its handling of concerns about asbestos and repairs to the bathroom, boiler and front door.
  2. £100 for the impact of failings in its handling of concerns about the external post box.
  3. £100 for the impact of failings in its handling of reports of ASB.
  4. £200 for the impact of failings in its handling of the complaint.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. review record keeping failings identified in this report. It should ensure appropriate processes are in place and that staff are reminded of the importance of making and storing accurate records.
2. ensure policies and procedures provide clear guidance on completing appropriate risk assessments following ASB reports, and that staff are reminded about the importance of this.
3. ensure complaint handling staff are aware that stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses should be provided by different officers.