Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

West Lancashire Borough Council (202315032)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315032

West Lancashire Borough Council

2 April 2025


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 handling of repairs to the resident’s doorframe and kitchen unit.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a first floor one-bedroom flat within a communal block. The landlord is aware the resident has a mental health condition.
  2. The resident previously reported issues with their bedroom doorframe to the landlord on 21 November 2021. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend the property on 21 December 2021, and the contractor completed works to the doorframe on this date. The resident was unhappy with the works completed by the contractor, as they spliced or joined wood into areas of the doorframe and did not entirely replace it. The resident raised further concerns with the landlord about the doorframe on 17 January 2023. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend on 20 February 2023, however they were unable to access the property. The doorframe was replaced on 27 June 2023.
  3. The resident also reported issues with their kitchen unit to the landlord on 22 December 2022. The landlord arranged for its contractor to remove and replace the kitchen unit on 4 January 2023. The contractor said they attended the property on this date to complete the works, however, during an inspection on 10 May 2023, the landlord confirmed the works had not been completed. The landlord arranged for the contractor to re-attend on 27 June 2023, where replacement materials were ordered, and the kitchen unit was replaced on 8 July 2023.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord which was acknowledged on 11 May 2023. They told the landlord they were unhappy with the workmanship of the contractor and the delay in completing the works to the doorframe and kitchen unit. They said they had requested an independent contractor to complete the works, and they wanted compensation for the delays.
  5. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response on 22 May 2023. It said it had been unable to complete the works to the doorframe and kitchen unit due to its contractor being unable to gain access to the property. It arranged for the contractor to contact the resident and schedule a suitable date and time for the works to take place. The landlord said it would monitor the issue and wait for confirmation from both the resident and contractor that the works had been completed and arrange a post–inspection to confirm the works were completed to a good standard. The landlord apologised for the delay and inconvenience the resident had experienced. No compensation was offered by the landlord.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and requested their complaint be escalated on 26 May 2023. They said the landlord did not monitor the contractor and it should have reminded the resident sooner of the tenancy agreement’s terms to allow access to their property for repairs. They said the contractor had been given access multiple times to take measurements for the outstanding repairs since 2021, and they were unhappy with the quality of works completed previously in 2021 and the lack of works completed to the doorframe and kitchen unit.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 29 June 2023. It said it had reviewed the resident’s escalation request and the events leading up to the complaint being made. The landlord told the resident its contractor had completed works to refit the doorframe in the bedroom and supplied and fitted a new bedroom door on 27 June 2023. The landlord confirmed follow on works were arranged to replace the base kitchen unit on 11 July 2023. The landlord said a follow-on inspection would be completed to assess the quality of works by the contractor. No compensation was offered by the landlord, and it confirmed this was its final decision.
  8. The resident referred their complaint to us on 25 July 2023. They said they were unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the lack of compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This investigation will assess the events which gave rise to the resident’s complaint on 11 May 2023. It will also consider the landlord’s responses up to and including its final complaint response on 29 June 2023. However, under paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, we will not investigate the landlord’s handling of events in the resident’s case before 2022. This is because we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising and the resident’s formal complaint to it was acknowledged in May 2023.
  2. In their complaint to the service, the resident also expressed unhappiness with the contractor being paid by the landlord for appointments they did not attend or attempt to gain access to the property for to complete the scheduled works. Under paragraph 42.g. of the Scheme, however, we may not consider complaints concerning commercial or contractual relationships not connected with the resident. Therefore, as it concerns the landlord’s commercial or contractual relationship with the contractor and not the resident, this matter would be outside of the Ombudsman’s scope to consider for this complaint. If the resident wants to take this aspect of their complaint further, they should consider discussing this matter further with the landlord, as we have been unable to find this matter has been brought directly to the landlord based on the evidence provided.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy separates repairs into different response times depending on the nature of the repair being reported. These are:
    1. Routine repairs (non-heating) within 20 working days.
    2. Emergency repairs (non-heating) within 4 hours.
  2. The policy states the landlord will offer availability for appointments between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am and 12pm on Saturday. This excludes Bank Holidays and Christmas.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs

  1. When the resident first reported the kitchen unit and doorframe issues to the landlord on 22 December 2022 and 17 January 2023, respectively, its initial response was not appropriate. Based on the evidence provided, the landlord arranged for its contractor to attend on 20 February 2023, resulting in both repairs exceeding the 20-working-day timescales provided in its repairs policy. This is because this was 39 and 24 working days later, respectively.
  2. Evidence provided by the landlord shows the contractor advised the landlord on 24 April 2023 they tried to access the property on 30 January 2023 to complete works to the kitchen unit and the doorframe. However, we have been unable to locate confirmation of this appointment within the evidence provided.
  3. The contractor was unable to gain access to the property during the appointment scheduled for 20 February 2023 and, as a result, the job was closed and not rearranged. This was due to the contractor reporting repeated no accesses to the property. As stated above, the contractor advised of an appointment on 30 January 2023, where they were also unable to gain access to the property.
  4. Due to the lack of evidence of the missed appointment on 30 January 2023, it is not possible to say it was appropriate to close the job down at this stage and not attempt to reschedule it. The resident has a mental health condition, which the landlord is aware of, and has previously stated during an occupational therapist’s assessment they are anxious and rarely let people enter their property. Further support could have been offered from the landlord given the resident’s vulnerabilities. This could have been, for example, in the form of arranging a joint visit with a representative from the landlord and the operatives due to complete the works to the kitchen unit and doorframe. We have therefore made a recommendation to the landlord to assess whether it can offer further support to residents with vulnerabilities where access to properties to complete repairs is an issue.
  5. Following the missed appointment on 20 February 2023, the contractor rearranged for the appointment to take place on 13 April 2023. However, on this date, the contractor contacted the resident to rearrange this appointment to take place on 12 May 2023, as the operative due to attend was sick. The contractor said they would try and bring this appointment forward where possible, however this did not happen.
  6. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the property on 10 May 2023, and they confirmed there were outstanding works to:
    1. The doorframe.
    2. The kitchen unit.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 May 2023 to provide it with their up-to-date contact number, and they also requested an update on when the contractor was due to attend to complete the outstanding works. The landlord confirmed with the resident that the contractor was due to attend on 24 May 2023. It was inappropriate the resident had to request an update on the appointment date. We have also been unable to evidence why the date provided of 12 May 2023 was not followed by the contractor, which was previously communicated to the resident in April 2023.
  8. The evidence shows the contractor attended the property on 24 May 2023, however no works were completed to either the doorframe or kitchen unit at this stage. During this appointment, the contractor reported they took measurements to allow them to order the necessary parts.
  9. The landlord arranged a follow-on appointment to take place on 19 June 2023, where the contractor would complete the outstanding repairs. However, when the landlord contacted the resident, they informed it they had already confirmed an appointment with the contractor to take place on 27 June 2023 and requested the 19 June 2023 appointment be cancelled. We have identified a failure in communication between the landlord and the contractor on this occasion, and this potentially caused confusion for the resident with multiple appointments being arranged.
  10. The contractor attended the property on 27 June 2023 and renewed the doorframe 111 working days after this was initially reported, however they did not complete any works to the kitchen unit. As per the evidence, the contractor ordered replacement parts for the kitchen unit following this appointment. We have been unable to evidence why the replacement kitchen unit materials were not ordered during the previous appointment on 24 May 2023. Given the length of time the repairs had been outstanding at the time of the appointment in May 2023, the contractor should have taken measurements for both the doorframe and kitchen unit. This could have prevented a further effect or inconvenience on the resident via repeat appointments and delays in resolving the outstanding issues.
  11. On 8 July 2023, the contractor attended the property and completed works to the kitchen unit 135 working days after this was initially reported. Both the repairs to the doorframe and kitchen unit therefore far exceeded the landlord’s 20–working–day repairs policy timescale for routine repairs. While the contractor highlighted issues with gaining access to the property on multiple occasions, there were significant gaps where the landlord could have completed these works sooner.
  12. When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, it advised the resident it would complete a post-inspection of the kitchen unit and doorframe works. The resident has since confirmed with the service the works are now resolved; however, we have been unable to evidence a post-inspection was completed. We have therefore made a recommendation to the landlord to request it reviews its relevant practices and staff training needs to make sure it better follows what it outlines it will do in its complaint responses. This is in line with the requirement for it to do so in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  13. The landlord has not provided compensation to the resident at either stage 1 or stage 2 of its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s role is to now consider whether the lack redress offered by the landlord in respect of the issues outlined above was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  14. While it is positive the repairs have now been completed, there has been an effect on the vulnerable resident due to repeat appointments it has taken to complete the works, as well as the length of time the repairs were left outstanding. The landlord has said in its complaint responses that these delays were the result of a lack of access being provided to the property. However, while there were access issues, overall, there were also significant delays to completing the works unrelated to the no access appointments on reportedly 30 January 2023 and 20 February 2023.
  15. For the reasons set above, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident £200 compensation in view of the distress, inconvenience, and effect on the resident. This amount also takes into consideration the landlord’s failure to explore the effect the situation may have been having on the resident’s mental health. The amount ordered is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, where a finding of maladministration has been made. This is where the landlord has been responsible for failures that have adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent effect on them from the landlord’s errors.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s doorframe and kitchen unit.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation, take responsibility for these, acknowledge the effect on the resident, and outline how it will prevent this from happening again.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused due to errors in its handling of the repairs due to the doorframe and kitchen unit between December 2022 and July 2023.
  2. Compensation payments should be made directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord: 
    1. Reviews its relevant practices and staff training needs to make sure it follows what it outlines it will do in its complaint responses, in line with the Code. In this instance completing a post-inspection of the works completed by the contractor.
    2. Assess whether it can offer further support to residents with vulnerabilities where access to properties to complete repairs is an issue.