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

Wolverhampton City Council (202222463)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222463

Wolverhampton City Council

6 December 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. Request for a hardstanding driveway to be installed to her property.
  2. Concerns about the installation of the driveway.
  3. Associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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.
  2. As part of her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident had expressed concerns regarding the landlord’s subsequent installation of the hardstanding driveway. The resident had raised concern over the quality of the work and the time it took the landlord to complete the work once it had started.
  3. Paragraph 42(a) states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
  4. While the landlord’s decision to carry out these works formed part of the resident’s formal complaint, the works began after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, so the landlord’s handling of the works did not form the resident’s complaint to the landlord or the landlord’s responses to this complaint. Due to this, it would not be within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint, as the landlord had not had an opportunity to review and act on this. The resident may wish to raise a further formal complaint with the landlord regarding the installation of the driveway. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman as a separate complaint once it has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of property. The landlord is the managing agent for the property acting on behalf of the local authority.
  2. An occupational therapist report was issued to the landlord on the 16 October 2020 which recommended that the front garden of the property was converted to a hardstanding, to assist with access.
  3. The resident and her family were temporarily decanted (moved) from the property due to extensive works that needed to be completed as part of a legal disrepair claim the resident had submitted due to the poor condition of the property. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 March 2022 advising she was anxious as there had been no work done to the front of the property, and she was due to move back in within 2 months. The resident asked the landlord why it could not have created the hardstanding during the time she was living away from the property. The landlord responded to the resident on 28 March 2022, advising it had met with the local authority regarding this, which had instructed the landlord to arrange a structural survey to establish the impact that the installation of a hardstanding area may have on the integrity of the property, due to the removal of earth and the installation of the necessary drainage needed for this.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 April 2022 advising that she had been awaiting further update as the landlord had advised it would provide her with weekly updates regarding the outstanding works to the front garden. The landlord responded advising that it would provide bi-weekly updates. The landlord advised that the local authority had been unable to proceed with the structural survey and it had contracted an independent surveyor due to this. The landlord advised that any work that was agreed in principle prior to the structural investigation taking place, would be ultimately dependent on the findings of this survey, as the landlord could not agree to works that impinge on the structural integrity of the property.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord via email, on 6 April 2022. She advised that this process was very upsetting for her and her husband. The resident advised that the landlord’s staff had been unprofessional in how they had communicated with her and were out to get her and her husband. The resident advised that the works to the hardstanding driveway had been agreed and had passed the landlord’s appeal process, but its staff were out to upset her and were providing false information. The landlord acknowledged this on 13 April 2022, with the landlord contacting the resident on 26 April 2022 advising it would delay providing a full response until after it had met with the resident on 29 April 2022 to discuss the issue further.
  6. The landlord arranged a formal meeting with the resident at the office on 29 April 2022. The landlord noted that the resident had advised she was disappointed with the delays in her requests for adaptations, which date back to 2020. The landlord advised this had been dealt with in a separate complaint with the landlord establishing works that needed to be completed and resident being temporarily decanted for these works to be completed. The landlord advised that it could not confirm that the hardstanding works would be completed prior to her returning to the property, as it could not confirm what works were possible until the survey had been completed, with the independent surveyor attending on 6 May 2022. The resident had expressed concern that the surveyor would not be independent and only listen to the landlord’s side of events.
  7. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 13 May 2022. The landlord advised:
  1. The landlord confirmed it had met with the resident on 29 April 2022 and reiterated its position as stated in this meeting. The landlord advised that the surveyor was appointed based on expertise and knowledge to review the structural elements of this issue, and any risk to the foundations of the property.
  2. The landlord noted the resident raised an issue of personal injury due to the delay in works. The landlord advised it had not been made aware of any injury or a claim currently raised through the landlord’s liability insurer. The landlord advised the resident to seek independent legal advice regarding this.

The landlord advised it was upholding the resident’s complaint due to a failure in service, specifically in it not being clear or responding to the resident in a timely manner. The resident acknowledged this on 13 May 2022, she advised she wanted her complaint to be escalated.

  1. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 17 June 2022. The landlord reiterated its stance regarding the communication from staff which should have been clearer, with this aspect of the complaint being upheld. The landlord confirmed that these works were being completed as part of a phased system for health and safety reasons. The landlord apologised for the hurt and trauma this may have had on the resident and her household. The landlord offered referrals for support for the resident. The landlord provided the resident information for its insurance regarding the resident’s reported personal injury.
  2. The resident responded to this on the same day. The resident advised that the landlord had failed to address all aspects of her complaint. She advised that the issue with drains was false but stated that she understood the landlord needed to follow this up with her neighbours to progress the works. The resident advised that if the landlord refused to do the hardstanding, it would cost the landlord significantly more to put the garden back to how it was. The resident advised the complaint response was one sided.
  3. The landlord responded to this on 24 June 2022 advising that it had at no point said it was refusing to do works to the front of the property, but it was ensuring that all options were being considered. The landlord advised it would have the building surveyor report by 4 July 2022 and it would arrange a meeting week commencing 11 July 2022 to discuss the findings and all options available.
  4. The landlord maintained communication with the resident between 1-28 September 2022, advising that it had been in communication with the structural engineer who had provided drawings for the works. It advised it had been in communication with the water provider regarding drainage. It advised on 15 September 2022 that it had received verbal confirmation from the local authority that the planning application for the hardstanding had been approved. It advised it needed to wait for this in writing, but it had contacted a contractor to complete the works and asked it to provide a formal quote.
  5. On 13 October 2022, the landlord advised that due to non-contact from its selected contractor, it would source another to provide a quote and carry out the works. The landlord confirmed on 2 November 2022 that the works were due to begin on 14 November 2022, which the resident agreed to, with the landlord confirming that it had fitted the fencing around the hardstanding by 17 March 2023.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord regarding the length of time the work took to complete, and the impact this matter on her and her household.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The Ombudsman was sorry to learn of the mental and physical impact this matter has had on the resident and her household. We do not doubt the resident’s comments about her health; however, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether this was directly affected by the landlord’s action or inaction. Often when there is a dispute over whether a health issue had been caused or made worse by negligence, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. Without that evidence, this Service is not able to draw any conclusion on whether the resident’s health has been affected by the way in which the landlord had handled her reports. It is however the role of this Service to assess how the landlord responded to the reports made by the resident regarding how this was affecting her health and wellbeing, whether its response was reasonable and proportionate in all circumstances of the case. The Service can also review whether the landlord followed its own policies and procedures, the law and industry best practice.
  2. The landlord provided the resident with information for its liability insurer. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it would give the resident an opportunity to progress with any insurance claim for any incident in which she felt the landlord was liable. Matters of liability for damage to health and/or possessions sit outside the complaints process and the landlord would not be expected to pay such claims outside the insurance process. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate complaints about insurance and therefore we cannot comment on this aspect of the complaint further.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s adaptations policy states that once a resident’s needs have been assessed, a landlord will discuss helpful adaptations to their home, or if more appropriate, assist its residents to move to accommodation that can better meet their needs. The landlord operates a housing panel to allow it to understand and review the best course of action for each individual case, considering personal need, care, and support and short- and long-term feasibility of a property. This will also review adaptations in excess of £15,000.
  2. The Equality Act 2010 Section 20 states:
    1. Where a physical feature puts a disabled person at substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.
    2. Where a disabled person would but for the provision of an auxiliary aid, be put at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to provide the auxiliary aid.

The resident’s request for adaptations to the driveway

  1. There is a pattern of the landlord either failing to provide updates, progress matters, or failing to record it had taken these actions. It is clear that the landlord had been provided with a copy of the Disability Facilities Grant (DFG) on 16 October 2020, with works not beginning on site until 14 November 2022. There is no indication that it had taken serious consideration to the works regarding the hardstanding at the front of the resident’s property until March 2022, when the landlord advised it was engaging with a surveyor to carry out a structural survey to the resident’s property. This is clearly a significant delay which had caused distress and anxiety to the resident. While some delays may have been expected during this period due to the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the landlord’s service, this does not explain the full extent of the delay as the landlord’s service should have returned to pre-pandemic levels sooner than March 2022.
  2. There are references to a review panel regarding the proposed works, but no indication of what this panel discussed or what was agreed. Effective record keeping is integral to effective case and complaint management. There is no indication that the landlord has maintained this throughout this matter. This was unreasonable from the landlord and had caused distress and anxiety for the resident during this process. This may have led to errors in communication which had led to the delay in works. By failing to provide this information to this Service, it also affected our ability to make a reasonable judgement on the information included.
  3. There are periods of poor communication from the landlord, which formed part of both the resident’s stage one complaint and her request to escalate this to stage 2. The landlord had acknowledged this in both its stage one and stage 2 complaint responses and noted that its communication had not been either timely or effective in explaining its actions or progress. While the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to ensure it was clear in its communications with a resident, the landlord had identified its failings in relation to this and apologised to the resident. From its stage 2 complaint, there is a much more proactive approach to communication from the landlord, which indicated that it had addressed these issues. This was reasonable from the landlord and demonstrated it had understood its failing and how this would have impacted the resident.
  4. The landlord conducted its survey on 6 May 2022. The landlord established that planning permission was required for these works, with the landlord confirming that planning had been granted in September 2022 and works beginning on 14 November 2022. The landlord stated in both its stage one and stage 2 complaint responses that due to the complexity of the work and the impact this may have on the structure of the property it had sought specialist advice, and also would not action works that may affect the structural integrity of the property. The landlord had arranged a meeting with the resident and staff with necessary technical expertise to further explain its action and the need for this level of investigation before it could progress with works. It was reasonable for the landlord to have taken this action. While this was frustrating for the resident, the landlord had acted reasonably in ensuring it had taken all safety precautions and did not act in a manner that risked the stability of the property, and the landlord had reasonably communicated this with the resident.
  5. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord had apologised to the resident for the failures in this case, however this does not fully address the impact and distress caused to the resident as a result of these failings and compensation would have been appropriate in view of this. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. In line with the remedies guidance, the landlord should offer compensation of £500 due to unreasonable delays, poor communication and distress caused to the resident and her household. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range are appropriate where the landlord had acknowledged its failings and made some attempts to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. The landlord will aim to respond fully in writing within 10 working days from the day the complaint was received. If the investigation will take longer, the landlord will contact the resident within 10 working days and explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response date. If the resident is not satisfied with the response given at stage one, they can request the landlord review its original complaint. It will fully respond within 20 working days with its decision.
  2. The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 6 April 2022. The landlord emailed the resident on 26 April 2022 advising it was delaying issuing its response to the resident until after it met with her on 29 April 2022 so it could include the outcome of this meeting in its response. The landlord issued its stage one response on 13 May 2022. This was 26 working days after the resident raised a formal complaint. While the landlord had advised there would be a delay in issuing its stage one response, this had exceeded the additional 10 working day limit as indicated in its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code (published online), which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. Whilst it would have been helpful for the meeting to have been arranged sooner, overall, the delay would not have had a significant impact on the overall complaint process as the landlord was in contact with the resident during this time and explained why its response would be delayed.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 May 2022 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 16 June 2022, 24 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. While this is outside of timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy, this did not present a significant delay in the landlord providing a response. The resident had advised that the landlord had failed to fully address all points raised within her complaint. From the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, the landlord had demonstrated that it had reasonably considered all aspects of the resident’s complaint and provided thorough responses to the points raised by the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it responded to the resident’s request for a hardstanding driveway.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the way it responded to the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation for poor communication and failure to progress required works to the hardstanding within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident in writing for the failure to acknowledge the impact this had on her, the poor communication and the delays in works being progressed.
  3. The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of this report.