Wolverhampton City Council (202328310)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328310

Wolverhampton City Council

30 July 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord acting in a way that breached general data protection regulation (GDPR).
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to change the anti-social behaviour (ASB) officer.
    3. The landlord’s handling of requests for reasonable adjustments.
    4. The landlord providing a notice of seeking possession.
    5. The landlord’s handling of a request to change a shared access path.
    6. The landlord’s handling of a request to replace paving slabs.
    7. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. 

Jurisdiction

  1. 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 this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident raised concerns about the landlord acting in a way that was an “invasion of her privacy” through a breach of GDPR. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme paragraph 42(j), this Service will not investigate matters that “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body”.
  3. Complaints made about breaches of GDPR are dealt with by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and as such are outside the remit of this Service. On this basis, this element of the resident’s complaint will not form part of this investigation. 

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy. This began on 12 October 2017. The property in question is a 2-bed end terraced house. The property has a shared access path which provides access to the garden for the neighbouring property. The landlord has shown that its records detail that the resident suffers from anxiety. 
  2. Due to a dispute around the shared access path, the landlord wrote to the resident in May 2022. It explained that the resident would be in breach of her tenancy if she continued to prevent access for her neighbour by installing a padlock to the gate. Following this, the landlord suggested it may take enforcement action to resolve the situation. The landlord met with the resident on 10 November 2022 to discuss the ongoing issues. It agreed to requests from the resident around its future interactions with her and mediation services were also agreed.
  3. On 6 February 2023, the landlord recorded an ASB report made by the resident. In an email dated 8 February 2023, the resident expressed concerns around the ASB agent after their initial discussion of the report. Further concerns were raised about the landlord’s management of her requests for an independent advocate and that it had not communicated with advocates previously. A third party advocate was arranged with Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) to assist the resident. 
  4. In March 2023, the landlord indicated that it would seek an injunction against the resident due to her continuing to prevent the neighbour’s access by using a padlock on the gate. In April 2023, the resident responded and requested that the landlord consider amendments to the shared access path and garden area.
  5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 31 May 2023 about the shared path dispute. She said that she had removed the padlock months ago, the landlord had ignored her contact prior to the court application being made and she would like it to consider her request for the path to be moved. She raised a further stage 1 complaint on 16 June 2023. This related to the actions of the ASB team as she said it had made unannounced visits to her property and she raised further concerns of contact and correspondence being ignored.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 29 June 2023 to the first complaint. The complaint was not upheld as it said it was satisfied that it had responded to any contact from the resident or her advocate. The landlord agreed to carry out a review of the shared path at the property, as per the resident’s request.
  7. On 10 July 2023, the landlord issued a Notice of Seeking Possession and Demotion notice. It explained that this was due to a breach of tenancy following an ASB report from her neighbour on 26 June 2023.
  8. The landlord provided the stage 1 response for the complaint about the ASB team on 26 July 2023. The complaint was not upheld as the landlord reiterated that it was satisfied that it had not ignored correspondence from the resident or her advocate. It refuted the resident’s claims of unannounced visits to her property but explained that it had attended the shared path with her neighbour.
  9. After surveying the shared access path on 25 July 2023, the landlord explained that it would not make changes to the path, due to the significant cost involved.
  10. On 15 August 2023, the resident escalated both prior complaints. The resident disputed the decision to not change the shared path and raised an additional concern around the paving slabs in her garden. She said that there had been further ASB from her neighbour and asked that the landlord replace the ASB agent managing her case.
  11. The landlord provided the stage 2 response to her complaint about the shared path on 27 September 2023. It said that due to the cost, it would not agree to the works to change the path but it had scheduled works to change the paving slabs in the garden. It provided the next stage 2 response on 4 October 2023 and provided a detailed response to the claims regarding its management of the complaints. Neither complaint was upheld by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to change ASB officer

  1. It is evident from an email dated 8 February 2023 that the resident was unhappy with an interaction with the ASB officer that she had spoken to that day. Given that the initial call to discuss the ASB report led to a disagreement, it is understandable that the resident would be disappointed with this interaction. Within her email, the resident made it clear she wished to use an independent advocate in future. However, the resident did not make a direct request for the landlord to change the ASB officer.  
  2. The landlord noted that on 9 February 2023, it discussed providing the resident  with assistance in finding an advocate to help her following her email. This was later arranged with CAB, who continued to act as her advocate through the complaint process.
  3. Despite the resident’s claim in her stage 2 escalation that she asked for a change to the ASB officer “several times”, the Ombudsman only had sight of this request being made once, within said escalation request from the CAB.
  4. It is clear from the stage 2 complaint response that the landlord has accommodated this request and said that a different ASB officer would be assigned, if further ASB reports were made. This is a reasonable decision by the landlord given the request.
  5. It is clear that there was a disagreement between the resident and the ASB officer at the start of the complaint. Although this officer continued to be involved with the resident afterwards, their engagement was through the use of the resident’s advocate. When the resident did make a written request for the ASB officer to be changed, the landlord agreed to do so for any further ASB reports, as there were no open cases at the time. On this basis, it is the view of the Ombudsman that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to change the ASB officer. 

The landlord’s handling of requests for reasonable adjustments

  1. The landlord has shown that the resident’s tenancy file is flagged to highlight her vulnerability in terms of her mental health and anxiety issues. The tenancy file also shows that her contact preference is for email only.
  2. It is evident that the resident had previously asked that any visits to her property be pre-arranged and she also requested that contact would be made by letter or email. During their interactions in September 2022, when the landlord issued warnings about the resident preventing her neighbour access to the shared access path, she suggested it had not kept to this agreement. This Service has not had sight of any evidence or specific examples of such failings by the landlord. However, it is evident that following these interactions, it did provide correspondence in writing and visits to the property were pre-arranged.
  3. The landlord met with the resident on 10 November 2022 and discussed her preventing access to the shared access path. The resident’s advocate was invited to the meeting but they did not attend. During that meeting, the landlord agreed an action plan with the resident to try and resolve the shared access issue. It agreed to engage with any advocate involvement, to only correspond by email, no unannounced visits to her home and it arranged a mediation service between her and the neighbour involved in the dispute. Given her concerns that it was not meeting her requests for adjustments, these actions were reasonable in establishing a framework for future interactions.   
  4. Following the resident’s report of ASB in February 2023, she expressed concerns that her advocate had been “blocked” from assisting. This Service has not had sight of any evidence of such refusals but it is evident that in response the landlord provided details around further use of advocate services and assisted in arranging this with the resident. A review of the reasonable adjustments was then carried out. Based on the resident’s concerns, this was a reasonable course of action for the landlord to take at that time.
  5. It is clear that following these interactions in February 2023, the landlord engaged with different third party advocates when managing contact with the resident. This continued throughout the complaint process. The landlord does note that the resident attended its office without an advocate after receiving letters warning her of a potential injunction. However, the resident explained in another email that she did so willingly, as she was unable to arrange for the advocate to attend with her.
  6. In reviewing the landlord’s actions, this Service has not had sight of any refusals by the landlord to consider the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments. Within two of the resident’s emails, she did make reference to the landlord not meeting previously agreed adjustments. However, it is evident that on both occasions, the landlord then sought to take proactive steps to ensure that such adjustments were considered and adequate measures were put in place to support the resident. Having considered this element of the complaint, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.

The landlord providing a notice of seeking possession

  1. The landlord acknowledged that it hand delivered a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) on 10 July 2023. It explained that it took this action due to a significant ASB incident on 26 July 2023, which led to police involvement. It said that a visitor to the resident’s property had knocked at the neighbour’s property and used obscene language and made threats of violence towards the neighbour.
  2. A NOSP can be used by landlords as a deterrent to stop further incidents of ASB from occurring. It acts as a warning to residents of steps it could take should there be any repetition of the issues that caused it.
  3. The landlord acknowledged that it had been asked to refrain from contacting the resident around July 2023. Although a landlord should always try to accommodate a resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments, it also has a responsibility to other residents. Given the severity of the ASB incident, with threats of violence being made, and a genuine concern of potential repetition or escalation, it is the view of the Ombudsman that it was reasonable for the landlord to provide this notice without delay.
  4. Within her complaint submission, the resident requested that the demotion order linked to the NOSP be removed from her records. However, the landlord explained that the notice was only used as a warning in this instance. No further action was taken following it, so the resident’s tenancy was not demoted from its secure status.
  5. Having considered the landlord’s actions in this element of the complaint, there was no maladministration in the landlord providing a notice of seeking possession.     

The landlord’s handling of a request to change a shared access path

  1. The request for a change to the shared path was linked to the historical disputes around the shared access path and the instances of ASB. Given that history, it was understandable that the resident made a request for a change to the shared access path.
  2. It is evident that the landlord did give adequate consideration to the resident’s request as it attended and carried out a survey of what her request would entail. However, due to the projected costs being between £5,000 and £10,000, the landlord explained that it would not carry out the requested works.
  3. As there was no obligation on the landlord to make such changes, it has shown a willingness to accommodate the resident’s request when assessing the potential for those changes. Its refusal to carry out said works was reasonable, given the cost implications involved. Having considered its management of this request, there was no maladministration. 

The landlord’s handling of a request to replace paving slabs

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that paving repairs do not form part of the responsive repairs process, as these would be considered planned or programmed work. Therefore, it would not fall under the same timeframes used in its responsive repair policy.
  2. In this instance, the paving that was replaced was outside of the landlord’s usual responsibility, as it was installed by a previous resident, not the landlord. After it identified that it would be responsible for the paving in this instance, it arranged for an inspection and scheduled the required works.
  3. The first request for this work was made within the stage 2 escalation request on 15 August 2023, with the required works recorded as completed on 8 November 2023. Given the checks that had to be completed prior to completion, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the time taken was not disproportionate to the nature of the works. In view of this, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request to replace paving slabs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints

  1. Within this investigation, there will be consideration of two complaints raised by the resident on 31 May 2023 and 16 June 2023. These will be addressed individually below.

First complaint – raised 31 May 2023

  1. It is evident that the landlord failed to meet the timeframes set out in its complaint policy which says it should respond to a stage 1 complaint in 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint in 20 working days. Its stage 1 complaint response took 21 working days and the stage 2 response took 30 working days. This Service has not had sight of any correspondence from the landlord, informing the resident of a delay in its responses. This is a failing on the part of the landlord.
  2. The landlord has shown that when investigating the complaint, it considered the resident’s position that she should not be responsible for replacing the paving slabs. After finding that it was responsible for them, it took appropriate action in carrying out an inspection of the area and then scheduled the works to replace them.
  3. Although the responses were late, the landlord did provide comprehensive responses to each element of the complaint, providing clear justification for its decision to not uphold each part of the complaint.
  4. It is evident that following its stage 2 response, the landlord ensured that the required paving works were completed in a reasonable timeframe.

Second complaint – raised 16 June 2023

  1. It is evident that as with the first complaint, the landlord failed to provide its responses in line with its complaint policy. The stage 1 response took 28 working days and the stage 2 took 35 working days. Having considered the landlord’s responses for each of the complaints, there was no apparent reason for the delays. This demonstrates a consistent service failing on the part of the landlord, as it did not act in line with its complaint policy.
  2. It is evident that the landlord accepted and investigated issues at stage 2 that had not been part of the initial complaint. These new issues would have required a full investigation, rather than a standard review at stage 2.
  3. Despite the late responses to the complaint, the landlord provided clear and detailed responses to the resident’s complaint at both stages of the process. It also provided an explanation around its decision to not uphold each element of the overall complaint.
  4. Having considered the landlord’s management of both complaints, it did not provide responses in a timely manner. Given the delays, the landlord should have offered an apology within its responses to acknowledge its failings in the process. However, its responses were clear and concise, providing detail of its investigation and an explanation behind the decisions it made. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to change the ASB officer.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord providing a notice of seeking possession.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request to change a shared access path.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request to replace paving slabs.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders

  1. The landlord should write to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report to apologise for the delays in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord either email or write to the resident and provide clear instructions on how to make a request for reasonable adjustments, or to provide authorisation for a third party advocate.