The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Wolverhampton City Council (202211603)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211603

Wolverhampton City Council

14 July 2023

 

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:
    1. reports of repairs required to the flooring in his property.
    2. associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a property owned by the landlord and managed by a management agent, which has responded to the resident’s complaint on behalf of the landlord. For ease of reference, this report will refer to the landlord to mean the landlord and its management agent.
  2. On 14 March 2022, the landlord’s contractor carried out repairs to the resident’s flooring in the hallway. On the same day, following completion of the work, the resident reported to the landlord that he was dissatisfied with the job that had been done to the floor, due to poor workmanship. Consequently, the landlord instructed the contractor to return to the resident’s property, to address his concerns.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 4 April 2022. He stated that he remained unhappy with the standard of work to the floor. He also explained that he was advised by the landlord that the works to his flooring would potentially require two days to complete and the contractor would contact him directly to confirm this. The resident complained that as he was not contacted by the contractor, he took two days of unpaid leave from work. In addition, he stated that he attempted to get clarity from the landlord by email, on 4 March, 6 March and on 14 March, as to whether the second day was needed. He expressed his frustration with the fact that the work was completed in one day, causing him to have taken an additional day of unpaid leave unnecessarily.
  4. On 20 April 2022, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident. It apologised for not responding to the resident’s emails regarding how long the work would take but explained that the timescales given are advisory. It also advised that it would arrange for its contractor to contact the resident directly to carry out a further inspection and complete any necessary works.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on 25 April 2022, as he felt the landlord’s response was insincere. He highlighted that he was being made to follow up on the works with the contractor directly, when it was the landlord’s responsibility to carry out post-inspections to confirm works had been completed to a satisfactory standard. He also requested compensation for the additional day he took unpaid leave from work and reiterated that he was still unhappy with the standard of work.
  6. The landlord sent its stage two response on 6 June 2022. In this it reiterated the points it had made in the stage one response and invited the resident to highlight any outstanding issues so that it could arrange a further inspection. Alongside its response, it instructed its contractor to reattend the resident’s property to complete the job to a satisfactory standard.
  7. The landlord’s contractor reattended the resident’s property on 27 June 2022, to replace and refit his floor tiles. However, the resident reported to the landlord that one tile remained slightly raised. The landlord carried out a post-work inspection on 18 July 2022, and confirmed that the floor tiles were uneven and could cause a health and safety risk. Therefore, its contractor was instructed to reattend the resident’s property on 26 July 2022, to rectify the problem.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 29 August 2022, to ask for the complaint to be investigated. He told this Service that he remained unhappy with the standard of work and that he would like for the landlord to compensate him for a day’s unpaid leave, and for the overall inconvenience and distress the experience had caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the flooring in the resident’s property.

  1. Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the structure of the property, which would include hardwood or tile flooring.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that upon completion of a job, operatives shall raise a customer satisfaction survey and request that the tenant completes it in private. It states that “it is essential to identify customer satisfaction levels”. The policy also states that the monitoring of repairs performance shall be undertaken in a variety of ways, including post inspections and quality checks as required.
  3. This investigation has considered the fairness of the landlord’s actions following the works carried out by its contractor, and its response to the resident’s reports that the work was unsatisfactory.
  4. It is clear from the resident’s email to the landlord on 14 March 2022, that he was unhappy with the work carried out to his flooring, as a result of the contractor’s poor workmanship. However, due to the lack of information provided by the landlord to this Service, it is unclear what the landlord’s view on the resident’s reported concerns were at the time. While it was appropriate for the landlord to instruct its contractor to return to the resident’s property to resolve any issues, the Ombudsman would have also expected to see an internal log from the landlord detailing the issues reported by the resident, and what additional work had been carried out to resolve them. This would have clearly demonstrated whether the landlord had appropriately considered if its contractor’s return visit to the resident’s property was needed as a result of poor workmanship or due to the resident’s expectations. If it was a case of poor workmanship, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord missed an opportunity to address the matter internally as part of the landlord’s performance monitoring and customer satisfaction pledge, as set out in its repairs policy.
  5. Additionally, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord reviewed the outcome of the floor works after its contractor had returned to the resident’s property for a second occasion. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged a post inspection shortly after the contractor’s second visit, to satisfy itself, and reassure the resident, that the job had been completed to a satisfactory standard. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s failure to carry out a post inspection at this stage, did not demonstrate good practice, and impeded its ability to make a fair and informed assessment on whether there was a legitimate reason for any further works to be carried out. As a result, the Ombudsman notes that 12 weeks passed before the landlord arranged for its contractor to return to the resident’s property for a third appointment, with no reasonable explanation as to why works to the flooring had not been completed satisfactorily during the previous appointments. This was inappropriate and would have understandably caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, as he was required to make arrangements for his property to be accessible for a third occasion, with no indication as to how many visits it would take to complete his flooring to a reasonable standard.
  6. The Ombudsman notes that following the contractor’s third visit on 27 June 2022, the resident remained unhappy. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a post-work inspection, which it carried out on 18 July 2022. From this, it established that the resident’s floor tiles were uneven, and could potentially cause a risk to safety, therefore, the contractor was instructed to reattend the resident’s property for a fourth occasion.
  7. Although the landlord’s records indicate that the works have now been completed, and it has confirmed with the resident that there are no more works to be completed, the resident has told this Service that he remains unhappy with the level of workmanship. He has explained that the tiles are uneven and the skirting has not been resealed. Based on the information provided to this Service by the landlord, there is no evidence to support the landlord’s conclusion that the works have been completed to a satisfactory level, or that no further work is required. Given the number of occasions the contractor has been instructed to return to the resident’s property, as a result of what the Ombudsman has concluded from the evidence as poor workmanship, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have arranged a final inspection before considering the job as complete. This is not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and its commitment to identify customer satisfaction levels.
  8. The resident has also told this Service that the landlord has offered to return to his property for a fifth occasion to refit the uneven floor tiles. However, he has declined this offer due to recently redecorating the walls in his hallway, and understandably does not want any damage caused to the paintwork as a result of the floor works. Under the circumstances and considering the landlord’s repair and health and safety responsibilities, it would be appropriate for the landlord to make contact with the resident to arrange a post inspection of the flooring and to outlinehow it intends to complete the outstanding flooring works to a satisfactory standard. The landlord would be obligated to make good any damage to decorations caused by the repair, and to clear up the area afterwards.
  9. The resident has also expressed that he was unhappy with being directed to liaise with the contractor directly and expected the landlord to have a more proactive role in the handling of his concerns. The Ombudsman has been unable to make a definitive assessment on this point, as there are no records to demonstrate that the landlord requested the resident to contact its contractor directly, and there are no records summarising the contractor’s correspondence with the resident. However, the Ombudsman notes that on two separate occasions, the landlord informed the resident that the contractor would contact him directly to confirm how long the job would take, and to discuss and complete any necessary works. As such, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have kept a clear record of when its contractor contacted the resident, and what had been discussed and agreed. Keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery, and the landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of any telephone notes or correspondence, so that it can satisfy itself, and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman), that it took all reasonable steps when handling the resident’s concerns. The landlord is responsible for the conduct of its contractors, and ultimately, the landlord is responsible for ensuring its contractor keeps accurate records of contact with residents and is able to provide these to the landlord when required. It will therefore be recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices in an effort to reduce the risk of similar issues occurring in the future. In light of the above points, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration by the landlord, in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the flooring in his property.
  10. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests compensation from £100 to £600 is appropriate for instances of maladministration by the landlord. Maladministration can include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, and delays in getting matters resolved. In this instance, an amount of £200 is appropriate, being £100 for poor workmanship, and £100 for the landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it has completed the resident’s floor works to a satisfactory standard.
  11. The resident has also raised concerns about the time he took off work to accommodate the initial repair appointment. While it is understandably inconvenient for residents to have to take time off work for such appointments, as per the tenancy agreement, residents are expected to provide reasonable access to the landlord’s staff and contractors as required, and the landlord would not be expected to compensate for this. Residents are able to nominate someone else to be at the property to allow access for repairs, such as a friend or relative if they are unable to be there due to work. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident that timescales given for planned works are advisory, as generally, when scheduling such works, time allotted is overestimated to allow for unexpected issues to be dealt with. The landlord has acknowledged that its communication could have been better and has apologised for not responding to the resident’s emails. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has reasonably addressed this element of the resident’s complaint. However, as above there was inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by having to be available for four sets of appointments for the same repair and compensation has been awarded for this as set out above.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one of its process within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide the resident with a stage-two response within 20 working days. The landlord states within its complaints policy that if a delay to issuing its response is likely to occur, it will contact the resident within 20 days of the complaint being received, to explain the reason for the delay, and to set out when a response is likely to be provided.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 4 April 2022, and the stage one complaint response was sent on 20 April 2022. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s stage one response was sent slightly outside of its complaints policy timescales. Additionally, the resident requested an escalation of his complaint on 25 April 2022, and the landlord provided a stage complaint two response on 6 June 2022: eight days outside of its published timescale of 20 working days. The landlord’s response time at stage one and two of its complaints procedure, would not be regarded as excessive, although, it is recognised, that any delay would cause some level of inconvenience to the resident. Still, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have contacted the resident to explain why there was a delay, and it should have apologised within its stage two complaint response for the delay, as set out in its complaints policy.
  3. The Ombudsman notes that in the resident’s stage two complaint, he highlighted that he had been compensated by the landlord, on a previous occasion, for a day’s unpaid leave, which related to a missed appointment. He also questioned why only six floor tiles had been replaced, when the contractor had informed him during the pre-inspection, that all tiles in his hallway were obsolete and would be replaced. For these reasons, he expected the landlord to compensate him.
  4. As the landlord did not address either of these points within its stage two response, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on the landlord’s reason for offering compensation on a different occasion. Additionally, the Ombudsman cannot assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s claim he was misinformed about what tiles would be replaced. However, based on the landlord’s complaints policy, which states that compensation is offered to its residents on a discretionary basis, and that complaints are considered under their own merits, it was reasonable for the landlord in this instance, not to offer compensation based on actions taken on a prior case. That said, the Ombudsman would like to remind the landlord that responding to its residents’ complaints in full is essential, and that residents should receive a comprehensive response to their complaints, which addresses all the concerns that have been raised.
  5. In conclusion, the landlord’s failure to contact the resident to apologise and explain why there was a delay in the issuing of its stage two response, and its failure to address the resident’s complaint in full, amounts to service failure, for which compensation is appropriate. Based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an amount of £100 is appropriate in the circumstances, where there have been failings by the landlord which affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact from these failings. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the flooring in his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the following compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. £200 for poor workmanship and for the failure to demonstrate that it has completed the resident’s floor works to a satisfactory standard.
    2. £100 in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. carry out a post-work inspection of the resident’s flooring to determine what works remain outstanding. It should then outline how it intends to complete any outstanding flooring works to a satisfactory standard, and it should reassure the resident that it will make good any damage to decorations consequential to the repair, and that it will clear up afterwards.
    2. issue the resident with a written apology for failing to address all the points raised within his stage two complaint. The apology should include a summary of any assessments made at the time of the pre-inspection, and an explanation as to why it was not deemed necessary to repair the tiles of the entire hallway.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure that clear and accessible records are kept of all its contractor and resident interactions, including assessments and inspection reports.
  2. The landlord should review its criteria for when a post-inspection is required to ensure that it is regularly monitoring the standard of work being carried out on its behalf, by its contractors.