Wolverhampton City Council (202344053)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344053

Wolverhampton City Council

28 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage problems.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the property, a 2 bedroom house, since 2001. The landlord is a local authority, which owns and manages the property.
On 10 September 2019, the resident raised a repair request (repair number 1605769). The resident said:
1. During heavy rainfall, water discharged into her outhouse, leaving it damp and unusable. Excessive rainwater also pooled and flooded outside her front door.
2. Separately, there was a mixture of rainwater, wastewater and sediment discharging through the boundary wall from next door onto her property. This created an unpleasant and slippery sludge, which remained on her pathway restricting access to her back garden and bin storage area.
3. The neighbour’s overflow pipe discharged additional wastewater 2 meters to the right of the water coming through the boundary wall. This regularly blocked and overflowed the gully on the resident’s side, covering her pathway with wastewater.
The landlord completed an inspection and told the resident:
1. It would send a letter to the private landlord who owned the neighbouring property informing them of the water damage and requesting they repair the issue and address the overflow.
2. Once the work was completed, the landlord would repoint the brickwork on the boundary wall.
3. It would also adjust the paving stones by the front door and front pathway so the excess water would be redirected to the gully to prevent the flooding and pooling issue by the front door.
The resident did not receive any updates following the inspection, so she emailed the landlord on 11 June 2020 asking for an update. She also asked to be copied into any correspondence with the owner of the neighbouring property. The resident did not receive a response to this email.
The landlord’s repair log shows a job was raised on 18 November 2020 to install channel drains where the water was discharged through the boundary wall. However, the repair log shows this job was cancelled without explanation.
The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord online on 17 June 2021, in which she outlined a history of the issue and explained there had been no progress. A copy of the stage 1 complaint has not been made available to this Service, but the resident has described this to us.
We have not been provided with a copy of the stage 1 response, but the resident has described this to us. The landlord sent the resident an email on 26 June 2021 containing a reference number for Environmental Health. The resident asked the landlord to explain why it had referred the matter to Environmental Health, but she did not receive a response. She contacted Environmental Health, which confirmed it was unable to help and the landlord would need to resolve the matter.
The repair log shows the landlord met a contractor on site on 9 February 2022 to obtain a quote for installing channel drains. A follow up job was raised to install the drains on 28 March 2022, but the notes show the resident requested this work not to be completed until a CCTV drainage survey was completed.
The landlord attended the property on 30 May 2022 and discussed the issues with the resident. The landlord confirmed it would contact the neighbour asking for access to be gained for a CCTV drainage survey and for bricks to be removed to check the drainage.
The resident called the landlord on 14 July 2022 and said:
1. The drainage company hired by the landlord had arranged an appointment for 14 July 2022 to complete a survey.
2. After the drainage company had not arrived, she had contacted it and it had told her the landlord had cancelled the appointment.
3. She wanted the landlord to investigate this and contact her.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 August 2022 and said:
1. The drainage company had misadvised her as it had not cancelled the job.
2. The job was provisionally booked in for 26 August 2022.
On 18 November 2022, the drainage company completed a CCTV survey and removed roots and encrustation from the drains.
The drainage company completed another survey on 3 February 2023. The resident told us the drainage company said there was a broken gulley at her neighbour’s property, which was causing the problem. It also suggested a structural engineer would need to inspect the wall in case of damage caused by the water. It told the resident it would send a report to the landlord confirming its findings.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions between 1 March 2023 and 26 June 2023 asking for updates on the proposed works. The landlord told the resident the correct department would update her, but she received no responses.
In July 2023, the landlord completed a further inspection. The inspector told the resident the caseworkers who were dealing with the case previously no longer worked for the landlord. The inspector also said the landlord was now using a different drainage company. The inspector told the resident they were on annual leave for a few weeks and would pick up the case again following this.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 11 October 2023, in which she:
1. Outlined a history of the issue and when she had reported it.
2. Said the landlord had not taken responsibility or completed appropriate actions to resolve the issue.
3. Stated the landlord’s stage 1 response had not complied with the complaint handling requirements in its procedure.
4. Confirmed that, in the last week, the water discharge had left a white powdery residue.
5. Said she had recently slipped on the sludge left behind by the discharge, which had resulted in a back injury.
6. Asked the landlord to update her, send her a copy of the drainage company reports, complete the works within 2 months and compensate her.
The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement of her stage 2 complaint on 24 October 2023. It told her it would send a full response by 20 November 2023.
The landlord sent a bricklayer to the property on 13 November 2023, who inspected the wall. The resident told the bricklayer she was waiting for the water discharge to be resolved before the wall could be repointed. The bricklayer told the resident he would file a report to the landlord.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 20 November 2023, in which it said:
1. It had received reports of drainage issues and completed work in June 2018 and November 2020.
2. It had mistakenly advised the resident on 18 August 2022 that her drainage appointment was going ahead, but this had been cancelled. It apologised for misadvising the resident about this.
3. The resident had told the landlord on 13 October 2023 her availability for an appointment with its new drainage company. It had made an error presenting these dates to the contractor, which had caused a delay. It had now arranged an appointment for 29 November 2023.
4. It upheld her complaint and offered £200 compensation for her inconvenience. It asked her to contact it if she accepted this payment.
5. The resident had reached the end of its internal complaints procedure and could bring the complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord’s new drainage company attended on 29 November 2023 and completed root cutting and high pressure water jetting on the drains. It also replaced the resident’s cast iron gully by the front door with a plastic gully. The resident asked the contractor if it was working from the previous drainage company’s report from February 2023, but it said it was working from an earlier report dated November 2022. After the resident said the correct report was from February 2023, the contractor told her it would inform the landlord about this but there would likely need to be further investigation to find the cause of the drainage issue.
In December 2023, the resident contacted the drainage company that completed the survey in February 2023. It advised the resident it no longer worked with the landlord, but the landlord still had access to its reports through a portal system. It gave a reference number of 543297 for the report in question.
The resident duly made her complaint to this Service on 30 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage problems

Sections 6.1 to 6.3 of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirm it categorises all repairs into 3 priorities:
1. Emergency repairs, which are likely to cause an immediate health and safety risk to the occupants, neighbours or the public. The target completion time for these repairs is 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs, which are not urgent and do not present an immediate health or safety risk. The target completion time for these repairs is 20 working days with a pre-agreed appointment.
3. Programmed repairs, which normally require replacement of existing major components. The target completion time for these repairs is 90 calendar days.
Section 6.4 of the repairs and maintenance policy says that most repairs will receive an initial visit within 20 working days from a tradesperson, contractor or surveyor to obtain more information or complete a more detailed investigation to determine the scope of the work needed.
We are unable to assess whether the landlord completed an inspection within 20 working days of the resident’s report on 10 September 2019. While the resident told us an inspection did take place, she did not know the specific date. There is no evidence of the inspection in the landlord’s records.
The resident has informed us, and we have no reason to doubt her recollection, that the landlord agreed actions with her during the inspection, including sending a letter to the owner of the neighbouring house and adjusting the resident’s paving stones to address the other drainage issue by the front door. We have seen no evidence the landlord took any action in relation to these events as recollected.
During another inspection on 30 May 2022, the landlord again promised to contact the neighbour to gain access for a CCTV drain survey. The landlord’s repair log says it completed this, but we have not seen a copy of any communications sent to the resident. The resident had also previously asked to be copied into any correspondence with the neighbour, and she did not receive any correspondence.
Following another inspection in July 2023, the landlord promised to pick up the case within a few weeks, but it did not contact the resident again until she raised a stage 2 complaint in October 2023.
During the most recent inspection on 29 November 2023, the contractor told the resident it would inform the landlord about the missing report from February 2023. It also said further investigation would likely be needed. However, the landlord completed no follow up after this and has completed no further action since.
Section 7 of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it is “committed to providing a repairs service that completes as many repairs at the first visit to the tenants home, wherever possible”. For repairs that cannot be completed on the first visit, the policy says it will “advise the tenant in advance…(and) keep the tenant informed of progress”.
It is evident that the landlord did not follow section 7 of its policy in its approach to this case. It would not have been possible to complete all required work in a single visit, due to the neighbouring house being privately owned. This would have affected the timescales in which the landlord could have completed the repair. However, following its initial visit, the landlord should have written to the owner of the neighbouring property and liaised with regarding the drains causing the issue. While it proposed to write to the owner of the neighbouring house, we have seen no evidence it did this. Instead, it arranged repeated surveys without addressing the root cause of the problem. The resident had to take time off work for each of these surveys, which caused inconvenience, in addition to the inconvenience of living with the drainage issues for several years without resolution.
The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of the repair. The resident requested updates on 11 June 2020, 1 March 2023, 31 May 2023 and 26 June 2023 but received no response from the landlord.
There was a lack of oversight in the landlord’s handling of the repair throughout. A pertinent example of this happened on 18 August 2022, when the landlord misadvised the resident that an appointment was scheduled for 26 August 2022. This appointment was in fact cancelled and because the landlord did not check the outcome of this with its contractor or the resident this led to a period of several months with nothing happening to progress the matter.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the landlord is obligated to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from hazards.
Drainage and sanitation is one of the categories in the HHSRS. A risk included in this category is “wastewater (being) discharged onto paths or gardens”. The HHSRS suggests the following preventative measures for this:
1. Wastewater to be discharged into properly designed trapped drainage inlets/vertical drains connected to the main sewerage system.
2. Properly designed soakaways for private treatment or storage system for foul sewage.
3. Surface water to be discharged into properly designed trapped drainage inlets connected to the main drainage system.
Another hazard included in the HHSRS is the risk of “falling on level surfaces”, which includes falls on any level surfaces such as floors, yards and paths.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord completed a proper assessment of the risks posed by the drainage problems at the property. While the landlord did arrange work to install channel drains on 18 November 2020, which would have been a reasonable preventative measure, it cancelled this work without explanation. The resident also told the landlord in her stage 2 complaint that she had slipped on the residue left behind by the leak, causing an injury. However, the landlord did not acknowledge this in its response or propose any action to reduce the risk of slipping.
For the substantial delays, the lack of action and follow-up, the failure to keep the resident updated, and the resulting detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure confirm it will:
1. Acknowledge both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days.
2. Issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being received.
3. Issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation request being received.
We have seen no evidence the landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement of her stage 1 complaint before issuing its response. For the stage 2 response, the landlord sent an acknowledgement after 9 working days, which was 4 working days past the required timescale. It also sent the stage 2 response 28 working days after the resident sent the escalation request, which was 8 working days past the required timescale.
Sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure confirm it will call the resident at both stages of its complaints procedure to discuss the complaint before issuing its responses. We have seen no evidence the landlord completed this. Had it done this, it may have gained a greater understanding of the complaint and been able to send more effective responses.
Section 4.15 of Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint handling Code (the Code) at the time of the complaint said the landlord needed to keep a full record of “the complaint, any review and the outcomes at each stage”. This included “the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared”.
The landlord has provided us with a copy of a stage 1 response it sent on 11 May 2022, but this was about a separate complaint regarding fencing. It has not provided us with copies of the resident’s stage 1 complaint or its response to this. The landlord has also not provided us with copies of any of the reports it obtained following the various surveys completed. This is contrary to its obligations under section 4.15 of the Code and suggests inadequate record keeping.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had completed works in response to drainage reports the resident had raised in June 2018 and November 2020. This was inaccurate because the resident had told the landlord she had raised the specific drainage issues for the first time in September 2019. The landlord had also cancelled the job in November 2020 without completing any works.
Section 6.5 of the Code at the time said any resolution offered needed to clearly set out what would happen and by when. Any proposed resolutions also needed to be followed through to completion. The landlord did not follow through its stage 2 resolution to completion. While it arranged a further appointment for the resident with the drainage company, it did not follow up after this to arrange for the necessary actions to be completed.
For the acknowledgement and response delays, the failure to discuss the complaint with the resident, and the failure to follow through with the stage 2 resolution, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. Clear and accurate records provide an audit trail and enhance the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The Ombudsman released his “spotlight on knowledge and information management” report in May 2023. The seventh recommendation in this report was for a landlord to develop key data recording standards across its organisations to ensure good records that supports its business.
The Spotlight report highlighted that, if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate or partial information.
The inspections referred to in paragraphs 5 and 17 of this report were not included in the landlord’s records and the Ombudsman has been reliant on the resident to provide these details. The lack of record keeping for these inspections contributed to the landlord arranging repeat inspections, which caused inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with copies of the resident’s stage 1 complaint or its response to this. This was contrary to its complaint handling obligations.
The resident told us of various instances where she contacted the landlord to request updates regarding the ongoing drainage issue. On each occasion, the resident told us the landlord said it would arrange for the correct department to contact her back but this did not happen. We have seen no evidence of these contacts in the landlord’s records.
Due to inadequate record keeping in its repair handling and complaint handling, the Ombudsman finds maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of drainage problems.
2. Complaint handling.
3. Record keeping.

Orders

It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with an apology written by a senior member of staff.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a payment of £1,300. This is to be provided in addition to the £200 offered in its stage 2 response and comprises an additional:
1. £900 for the long delays in completing the repairs, and the resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. £300 for the complaint handling failures identified.
3. £100 for the record keeping failures identified.
It is ordered that, within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord arranges a new survey of the drainage issues of the property and prepares a schedule of works to rectify any issues found.
It is ordered that, within 16 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord completes any works required to address the drainage problems at the property. If it is unable to complete some of these works because of third-party issues with the neighbouring property, it must provide this Service with evidence it has made reasonable attempts to gain cooperation from the owner of the neighbouring property.