Wolverhampton City Council (202117510)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117510

Wolverhampton City Council

20 May 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over smells and fumes entering her property.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over security related to a key safe at the property.
   3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the landlord to remove decking from her garden.

Jurisdiction

2. What we 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 Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over smells and fumes entering her property.
4. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. It is noted that the resident made a new complaint to the landlord on 8 January 2022 about her concerns over smells and fumes entering her property. As this complaint had not exhausted its internal complaints procedure prior to the current complaint being brought to this Service, this matter will not be considered in this investigation.

Background

5. The resident is the tenant of the landlord and commenced her tenancy on 9 December 2019. Over the course of the next six months she reported various minor repairs to the property. On 24 June 2020, the landlord attended the property to remove a key safe, which could only be accessed after entrance through the front exterior door. The safe contained keys that allowed access to the internal door to her property but not to the main external door. The resident raised a stage one complaint about her concerns about the security of the property and the condition in which it was let to her.
6. During the course of her complaint, the resident raised additional concerns about the condition of the garden when the property was let to her. In the landlord’s final response to her on 18 August 2020, it noted that all repairs had since been completed with the exception of the shower, water pressure and temperature control and asserted that the property had met its lettable standard when handed over to her. The landlord apologised for not clearing her garden prior to her moving in and noted that useable garden decking had been installed by a previous tenant. It explained it had left this in place as it considered that this may be useful to a new tenant. The landlord acknowledged that the resident did not want this decking and offered to arrange for this to be removed at a time suitable for her.
7. The landlord confirmed that all keys to the property were given to the resident and it did not retain any keys. It apologised if this was not clearly explained to her and confirmed that the keys found in the key safe would not have allowed access to the property from outside, only to the internal doors once inside. Nevertheless, the landlord offered to replace the lock if the resident required this. It said that it had conveyed this to her on 15 July 2020 but had not received a response from her.
8. The resident requested, on 25 January 2021, that the landlord remove the garden decking as her mobility issues made this unsafe for her to use. It responded to her to advise that this was her responsibility to carry out and referred her to its independent living team if she was experiencing mobility issues. The resident informed this Service on 6 December 2021, that the aspects of the complaint which she considered to be outstanding were that:
   1. It had not identified the security risk involving the keys to the property which had led to unknown intruders to enter the property in her absence.
   2. The landlord had not removed the pre-existing garden decking, which she wanted replacing with concrete slabs.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns over security related to a key safe at the property

9. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. As part of this, it should make sure that the property is reasonably secure from unauthorised entry by intruders by providing lockable doors and windows. The landlord’s lettable standard webpage also states that it will “change door locks wherever possible and give [the resident] at least two keys for all locks”.
10. The resident reported, in her stage one complaint on 24 June 2020, that she had been informed by the landlord that she had been provided with a new set of keys on the commencement of her tenancy and that its policy was to change locks. Its stage one complaint response confirmed that it had changed the front external door lock. Therefore, the landlord had acted in accordance with its lettable standard and had made reasonable effort to secure the property from unauthorised access.
11. There was a dispute over what the resident was advised at the start of the tenancy; she said in her stage one complaint that the landlord told her that all keys were changed on a new let of a property. Where recollections vary, the landlord would be expected to investigate the issue and provide its findings to the resident in a timely manner, based on the evidence available. It relayed to her in its stage one complaint response that it had spoken to the officer present during the tenancy sign up stage but was unable to confirm exactly what was said about the number of keys. Due to lack of independent evidence of what was said, it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for any lack of clarity.
12. The resident said, in her stage one complaint, that she had reported that unknown persons had accessed her property and used her toilet and electricity. The landlord’s stage one response stated that it had received no record of these reports. The Ombudsman has also had no sight of any evidence relating to this. If this was the case, the resident may wish to report this to the police as trespass is a criminal matter. Given that there was no evidence of her reporting intrusion in to her property, and the keys in the key safe could not be accessed until entry had already been gained through the front exterior door, it was reasonable for the landlord to assert, in its stage one response, that there was no evidence the security of the property had been compromised. Its final stage complaint also confirmed that it did not retain any keys. It was also reasonable for the landlord, in consideration of the resident’s concerns, to offer to replace the lock. Its final response confirmed that this took place on 17 and 20 July 2020.
13. In conclusion, the landlord took reasonable steps to secure the property and offered to replace the interior door lock in consideration of the resident’s concerns. There was no evidence that an intruder had gained access to the property or that the property was not secure. Therefore, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about the security of the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the landlord to remove decking from her garden

14. The landlord’s lettable standards webpage states that it will ensure that gardens are provided to the resident in a manageable condition. This also advises that garden maintenance work may have to be completed after the resident has moved in in the event of bad weather.
15. In the landlord’s final stage complaint response, on 18 August 2020, it explained that its inspection of the property during the void period found that the garden decking was in a useable condition and was left in place as it may benefit a new tenant. However, in consideration of the resident’s wish for this to be removed, it agreed to arrange this at a convenient time for her. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
16. However, when the resident subsequently contacted the landlord on 25 January 2021 to request the removal of the decking, it informed her that this was her responsibility. This contradicted its earlier offer to remove this. This was unreasonable for the landlord and was more so given that she informed it that the decking was a hazard to her due to her mobility issues. As explained above, the landlord had a duty to ensure that the property was free of hazards which may endanger the resident. There was a failure by the landlord to be consistent in its response to the resident, and a failure to keep an agreement which it had made with her.
17. Therefore, the landlord unreasonably refused to remove the garden decking from the resident’s property. She has informed this Service that she wanted the decking replaced with paving. While this may be considered an improvement to the property if no paving previously existed at the property, the landlord will be recommended to remove the decking, as it had previously agreed to do so, and pay due consideration to the provision of paving if this is found to eliminate a hazard for the resident.
18. For the landlord’s failure to follow through with the agreement in its final stage complaint response to remove the garden decking, compensation of £150 should be paid to the resident for this. While there was no evidence of a significant detriment caused to the resident, this compensation is to recognise the likely time and effort experienced by her in pursuing the complaint.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint concerning the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over smells and fumes entering her property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns over security related to a key safe at the property.
21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for it to remove decking from her garden.

Order

22. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £150 compensation for its failure to uphold its agreement to remove her garden decking.
    2. Agree a date when it will remove the garden decking from the property, to ensure it completes the offers made in its formal complaint response.

Recommendations

23. The landlord should:
    1. Consider paving over the currently decked area if appropriate to prevent this posing a hazard to the resident.