Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Wolverhampton City Council (202112929)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112929

Wolverhampton City Council

21 February 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 request for repairs to her shed, and her subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The landlord repairs records show that a work order to renew the garden paving was completed on 21 July 2016. Follow on works to “Repoint wall rear garden. Re–bed slabs rear garden” were completed on 8 May 2017. 
  2. There is no evidence of further correspondence regarding the repair works until the resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 12 May 2021. She said when her garden wall cracked (the slabs), the contractor removed the wall and made the garden all one level (the 2017 repair). She said she had not given permission for this. She said that since the repair, the ground had moved and her shed had tilted and become damaged as a result. She sent photos of the shed before the repairs and in its current condition. She asked the landlord to reinstate the supporting wall in the garden and fix her shed as she has spent a lot of money installing it.
  3. The landlord sent its stage one response on 4 June 2021. It had reviewed the work that had been completed to remove the broken slabs and reinstate the garden’s slope (in 2016 and 2017). It said as the works were carried out more than five years ago, they could not be attributed to the condition of the shed. It said “Due to the type of construction timber sheds do experience dilapidation over time and deteriorate in their condition as appears to be the case in this instance”.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 June 2021 requesting to escalate the complaint as she stated the repair had been completed three years ago, not five.  She reiterated that the photos she sent clearly showed the shed had moved.
  5. The landlord responded on 9 June 2021 and stated there would be a delay issuing its response as it needed to discuss the complaint with the staff member that issued its stage one response, who was unavailable for a week.
  6. Following further correspondence between the landlord and the resident to confirm whether there was any further evidence, the landlord sent its stage two response on 11 August 2021. It confirmed the resident had raised a work order on 15 July 2016 to repair a paving slab in the garden and a further work order was raised on 25 April 2017 to re-bed slabs. It said it had received no further service requests relating to the paving since then. It reiterated that the shed had experienced significant weathering and as she had not reported any issues since the initial repairs, there was no evidence to suggest that subsequent problems with the shed had been caused by the landlord. It explained how she could escalate her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for repairs to any installations or improvements they have made.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states that:
    1. It will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
    2. It will provide an explanation if there is a delay in issuing its response. 
  3. It is important to make clear up front that the Ombudsman (as per paragraph 39 (e) of the Scheme) will not investigate matters which were not raised as formal complaints with a landlord within a reasonable timeframe, usually six months. It is not apparent from the evidence when the resident became aware of damage to her shed. However, she attributed it to the landlord’s actions in 2016/2017. No evidence has been presented showing any earlier formal complaints to the landlord before 2021. Because of that, in line with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, this investigation centres on the reasonableness of the landlord’s responses to resident’s complaint in 2021. It does not consider the landlord’s 2016/2017 actions. Reference to them in this report is for context only.
  4. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for repairs to any installations she made herself. Nonetheless, in general, if there was evidence that a landlord’s actions caused damage to a tenant’s belongings, there would potentially be an argument for the landlord to consider some form of remedy. In this case, the evidence provided to the landlord in support of the resident’s concern was photos of the shed before the repairs in 2016/2017, and afterwards, several years later. There appears to be no dispute by the landlord that the shed was in a state of some disrepair in 2021, but photos, on their own, are not sufficient evidence that the landlord’s repairs led to the damage after such a long period. No other evidence was provided. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to conclude it was not responsible.
  5. The landlord took 16 working days to respond to the stage one complaint, and whilst it exceeded its complaints timeframe, that was not a significant delay. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 4 June 2021, the landlord was then in correspondence with her to ascertain whether there was any further evidence, and it issued its response on 11 August 2021, a total of 48 working days. While again this did exceed the timeframe of 20 working days, it maintained communication and explained the reason for the delay during this time. The delay, therefore, did not have a detrimental impact upon the outcome of the complaint. 
  6. Overall, due to the lack of evidence to suggest the repairs to the garden paving caused the damage to the shed, and the prolonged length of time between the two events, the landlord’s decision that it was not responsible for damage to the shed was reasonable. It’s handing of the complaint was delayed, but not significantly so, and was mainly due to the landlord gathering more information.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted reasonably as there was no evidence to suggest that the repairs work caused damage to the shed. In accordance with its policies, it was therefore not liable to repair it as it was installed by the resident.