Wolverhampton City Council (202113087)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113087

Wolverhampton City Council

18 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of rubble in her rear garden;
2. concerns about the landlord’s operatives attending unannounced;
3. reports of a rodent infestation;
4. request to for a property transfer.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant at the property of the landlord since 14 May 2018. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has reported that she is affected by health concerns.
On 16 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and requested an update regarding the removal of rubble from her rear garden. It is not evident that the landlord responded and she subsequently reiterated this request on 17 December 2020. The resident also reported sightings of rodents around the rubble.
On 18 May 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint. She advised that at the point of signing her tenancy agreement, she had raised concerns regarding rubble in her rear garden which had been “fenced off” from the rest of the garden. At the time, the landlord advised that the rubble in the rear garden would be cleared. The landlord then contacted the resident several months later and advised that the removal was not a “repair job” and so had been raised with its voids team to be completed. Nothing had been done since.
The resident also reiterated her reports that she had seen rodents running around her rear garden near the rubble. She further reported that the rodents had chewed the down pipe, fencing, and hose pipe at her property.
The landlord’s operative subsequently attended to investigate the reports of rodent damage. The operative informed the resident that there were entry points where the rodents would be able to enter the property. This caused the resident anxiety and she temporarily vacated the property. It is not evident any further works to address the rodent infestation were arranged.
The resident further complained that the landlord’s operatives had showed up unannounced to her property. The resident expressed her anxiety at the pest infestation and that she considered the landlord “made it clear it did not care” about her mental health. The resident also advised she had contacted her GP and had been provided with a letter of support for her request to move from the property due to the impact the issues were having on herself and her children.
The landlord issued it stage two response on 25 November 2021, in which it noted the following:
1. It advised that following investigations into the rubble, its operatives had determined that a digger would be needed to remove the rubble. Therefore, it would be in touch when an appointment was available.
2. When removing the rubble, the landlord advised it would also need to remove the fencing surrounding it, but it would be replace this once the rubble was removed.
3. Regarding its operatives turning up unannounced, the landlord advised that it had requested them to call and arrange appointments going forward. It apologised for the unsatisfactory service regarding the appointments.
4. The landlord advised that it was its understanding that the resident had contacted the local authority’s environmental health team (EH) in order to address the rodent infestation, but that EH could not assess until the rubble was removed. The landlord advised it “hoped” that once the rubble was cleared, EH would resolve the rodent infestation, but if not, then the resident should contact the landlord and it would review if assistance was needed.
5. Regarding the resident’s request to be relocated, the landlord advised that the “better” option for the resident was a mutual exchange. The landlord also discussed the potential application for a move based on a medical need, but due to a high volume of applicants and emergency housing requests, it was more difficult to relocate families.
The resident referred this matter to this service on 18 January 2022. The resident advised that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage two response and that she still had not received an update regarding the rubble removal.
The resident explained that the outstanding issues are:
1. The rubble has not been removed.
2. Contractors had showed up unexpectedly which made her and her children feel vulnerable in her own home.
3. He child was having nightmares due to the pest infestation.
4. She felt unable to go into rear garden of the property, due to the rodent infestation.
5. She felt she was being “fobbed off” by the landlord, making her feel “less important.”
As a resolution to the issues, the resident would like to either be moved into an alternative property or for the rear garden repairs to be resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As part of her complaint, the resident has advised that her mental health has been affected by the ongoing issues in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her mental health, however, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Such a determination is more appropriate for the courts. The Ombudsman, however, has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident. The resident may be able to seek further legal remedies in relation to this element of the complaint and should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage two response should be provided within 20 working days.

Rubble

The Ombudsman considers it best practice for a landlord to address issues raised by a prospective tenant prior to them moving in during the void period, where possible. Alternatively, the landlord should provide a timeframe for the works to be completed. Due to the extremely high demand for social housing, to avoid any delays in providing housing, it is considered acceptable for more minor repairs to be carried out after a tenant moves in, provided the repairs would not cause a health and safety risk, however, the landlord should be clear when this is the case.
The resident stated that when she moved into the property in 2018, there was rubble in the rear garden which the landlord agreed to remove. This has not been disputed by the landlord, nor has the responsibility of the landlord to remove this rubble.
Based on the evidence provided to this service, the resident raised concerns regarding the rubble both prior to moving into the property and again in 2020, when the work still had not been completed. While it may have been acceptable for the rubble to be removed after the resident moved in, the landlord should have provided timeframes to the resident of when it would complete the removal works, and kept the resident informed of any delays to the works. It is not evident, however, that landlord provided any timeframes for the promised works, nor did it provide any further updates. This lack of information and communication would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as she was understandably concerned about her and her child’s safety while the rubble remained at the property.
Following the resident’s reports in September 2020 that the rubble was yet to be cleared, the landlord did not provide a response, leading her to make a further report in December 2020. At this time, the landlord advised that its voids team was responsible for the works. Regardless of which team the landlord chose to complete the works, it was reasonable for the resident to expect such works to be completed within a reasonable timeframe, which may vary according to the circumstances. While it is evident that the landlord’s operatives carried out an investigation of the rubble and determined a digger was required, no indicative timeframes for the works were provided, and the works remained incomplete at the point the complaint was made to this service, some four years after the resident initially raised the issue prior to moving into the property. This timeframe is significantly beyond what the Ombudsman would consider reasonable.
This delay, along with its poor communication and failure to provide adequate updates amounts to maladministration by the landlord. Given the significant amount of time the landlord has left the issue unresolved, along with the time and trouble expended by the resident in chasing up the issue, compensation of £450 is appropriate to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Unannounced visits

The resident also raised concerns regarding contractors turning up unannounced to her property. It is good practice, that prior to contractors attending the property, it should provide the resident with sufficient notice of the appointment. Therefore, the landlord did not act in line with good practice by attending the property unexpectedly. The resident in this case, also reported to the landlord that the unexpected appointments made her feel “vulnerable” in her own property. The landlord apologised for this and assured the resident that prior to any appointments, the resident would be contacted. This was a reasonable resolution to the resident’s concerns, therefore, the landlord acted appropriately in its attempt to resolve the resident’s concerns.

Pest infestation

The resident first reported her concerns regarding the rodent infestation in December 2020. When receiving such a report, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to carry out a reasonable investigation of the issue and satisfy itself as to whether it had any obligation to carry out works to rectify the issue. There has been no evidence provided to this service that the landlord subsequently attempted any investigation of the resident’s reports.
Given the landlord’s failure to carry out any investigation or provide its position, the resident was left to contact EH for assistance. The resident has informed the landlord that EH would not take action given the rubble remained. Given that no party has carried out an investigation of the issue, it was unreasonable for the landlord to determine the rubble was the sole cause of the infestation. Its position in its stage two response that it would initially leave the issue for EH to address following the removal of the rubble was therefore unreasonable, as it had failed to adequately determine that this would solve the issue, and that there weren’t other factors that it needed to address.
This failure to carry out a reasonable investigation over a considerable period of time amounts to maladministration in the circumstances. Given the distress this caused the resident, an amount of £200 compensation is appropriate to recognise the impact this had on her.

Transfer request

In both stages of her complaint, the resident requested that she be moved from her property as she no longer felt comfortable in the property and felt that it was affecting her mental health.
The landlord explained to the resident her options for moving property, including using ‘homeswapper’, or by making an application for an emergency move on medical grounds. It also explained to the resident that there was an unprecedented demand on housing and therefore, the availability of housing was limited.
The landlord therefore responded to the resident’s request appropriately by giving her information about her options based on her circumstances, and measuring her expectations.
A recommendation has been made below that the landlord should contact the resident to offer continued support and information regarding a property transfer.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that a stage two response should be provided within 20 working days. However, in this case the landlord did not provide a response to the resident until 116 days later, meaning that the landlord’s response was significantly beyond the timeframe in its complaint handling policy.
The landlord’s stage one response was also lacking in detail and failed to adequately provide the landlord’s position on the delays to clearing the rubble, instead only referring to an upcoming appointment. This response also failed to comment on the rodent infestation or the impact the issues had on the resident. This response caused the resident distress and inconvenience and gave her the impression that the landlord did not take her concerns seriously. It also led to her expending time and trouble in chasing updates.
In the circumstances, the poor stage one response and the significant delay to the stage two response without any explanation amount to maladministration. An amount of £150 compensation is appropriate to reflect the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its:
1. response to the resident’s reports of rubble in her rear garden;
2. response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation;
3. complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s:
1. concerns about the landlord’s operatives attending unannounced;
2. request to for a property transfer.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £750, comprising:
1. £450 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays in removing the rubble;
2. £200 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to investigate the rodent infestation;
3. £150 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord is also ordered to:
1. arrange for the rubble to be removed and provide the resident with a timeframe these works to be completed;
2. arrange for the rodent infestation to be investigated and provide the resident with a timeframe for this inspection to be completed. Once completed, the landlord to provide its position on works to address the rodent infestation.
The landlord must within four weeks of the date of this determination provide evidence to this service that these works have been arranged and that timeframes have been provided to the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident and reiterate its ongoing support and information in relation to any property transfer application.