Wolverhampton City Council (202317341)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317341

Wolverhampton City Council

28 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Privacy concerns related to the boundary of the garden.
2. The resident’s reports of repairs to the garden fence.
3. The resident’s request to move gas pipework.
4. The resident’s reports of a pest control issue.
The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor property in a block that is owned and managed by a landlord that is a local authority. The property was let under secure tenancy agreement in July 2010. The landlord says that it does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident, but that he has declared he has learning difficulties. The resident has therefore had a representative throughout the complaint. The resident and his representative are both referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
The resident reported concerns about the garden boundary, the condition of a neighbouring garden, and pest control issues to the landlord during the 8 years before 2021.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 8 June 2022. He said that the neighbour did not keep their garden tidy, the landlord had cut a tree down, disposed of it over the fence, and it did not tidy the garden. Additionally, he said:
1. He wanted the garden layout to be changed so that he could have privacy and did not have to keep the curtains closed and the lights on.
2. A rotten fence needed to be replaced.
3. Rats had been returning to the property even though he had spent money on pest control. He said that this was because a neighbouring property had a broken sewer in their garden.
4. The electricity needed to be tested because it kept tripping.
5. The gas piping was located in an odd place above the internal doors and could have been installed more neatly.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 June 2022, and it sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 29 June 2022. The landlord said it was sorry that its service was not what the resident has expected and for any stress and frustration this may have caused. Additionally, it said:
1. It had visited the property twice and had discussed the request to fence off an area of the communal garden. It said that it was not practical to change the layout of the garden, which was divided by a slab pathway.
2. It had reviewed the condition of the boundary fencing, which it found to be in good condition and provided privacy to the residents. It said that it would only consider replacing fencing if it was not repairable.
3. The reported rats were coming from a property that the landlord did not own or manage. It would investigate further if it was provided with an address.
4. It had completed a one–off cut of the garden, and it had agreed to install a 6-foot gate during the week of 27 June 2022 to provide further privacy.
5. It had logged a repair to address the electrics before 24 June 2022, and it would complete any follow on work in keeping with its procedures.
6. It would be unable to replace gas pipework that was in working order for cosmetic purposes, but it would speak to its gas team about whether it could make any improvements.
7. It did not uphold the complaint.
The resident sent a stage 2 escalation request to the landlord on 8 July 2022. He said:
1. He wanted the gardens to be changed because he had to keep his curtains closed and the lights on. This was because his neighbour could sit in front of the bedroom and living room windows whenever they wanted to.
2. The garden design should not have passed planning permission. It would be better if it was changed so that the neighbour kept a concrete area. This was because they had no interest in maintaining the garden.
3. A fence was rotten, leaning, and needed to be replaced.
4. The landlord had put up 2 gates but had left gaps and it had not done a very good job.
5. He had seen a big rat by the property, which he thought came from a broken sewer drain nearby.
6. He had previously reported that a drain on the public walkway had been filled with dirt. He had been told that he would have to pay for it to be removed, even though he had not put the dirt there.
7. No one had visited the property on 24 June 2022, to assess the electrics as it had previously agreed.
8. He hoped that some improvements to the gas pipes could be made.
9. A neighbour of a different race had repairs completed on a regular basis that were in perfect condition, but there was a difference with his repairs.
The landlord discussed the resident’s stage 2 complaint with him on the telephone on 14 November 2022. It acknowledged the stage 2 complaint by email on the same day and it sent a stage 2 response to him on 8 December 2022. It said that it was sorry that the resident was not satisfied with its stage 1 response. In addition to comments it had made in the previous response, it said:
1. A staff member with expertise in boundary matters had considered his request for a section of fencing to create a private garden space. However, it was not possible to put up a fence or move the boundary.
2. Fencing off the garden would not be in keeping with the open–plan layout of the communal area. It had considered the request fairly and reached the correct conclusion for valid reasons.
3. It had inspected the fencing and had concluded that the holes it contained were a part of the style of fence, and therefore it would not be able to replace it. However, it had replaced a gate to provide privacy.
4. It understood the resident’s view that the gas pipework was unsightly. It had inspected the pipes and concluded that they did not require repair, and it would not move the pipework for cosmetic purposes.
5. The resident had confirmed that rats were not accessing the property. He would notify the landlord if this became an issue. It had arranged for pest control treatment to be completed as a precaution.
The resident has since reported the matter to the Ombudsman and has asked for the landlord’s handling of the matters to be investigated and for garden repairs, pest control, and communal garden maintenance to be completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman notes that, in an email dated 26 December 2022, the resident has alleged that the landlord had rejected the case because of racial and disability discrimination. We cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal determination, which only a court can decide. It is not clear if the resident has contacted the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) about this. The EASS are the appropriate body to advise about dealing with allegations of discrimination. This investigation will instead look at whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded in a reasonable and competent manner in relation to the resident’s housing related issues and formal complaint about this.
In the resident’s 2022 complaint he has referred to historical reports about the condition of the garden for over 10 years. The Ombudsman has not investigated the historical incidents. This is under paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, which states that we may not investigate complaints not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising. The historical issues provide context to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint the resident made on 8 June 2022.
It is not within the powers of the Ombudsman to make a finding about where the boundary line should be or to order the line be changed. This is a legal matter that should be determined by an inspection of the land and with reference to any documents held by the Land Registry. Further, this would be a matter for the landlord to raise, given that it owns the property. We cannot determine whether the landlord reached the correct conclusion with regards to the boundary line. However, we have assessed how the landlord dealt with the matter, and what steps it had taken to investigate matters relating to the boundary line.

Privacy concerns related to the boundary of the garden

The resident reported concerns about the layout garden to the landlord before to raising the matter in his complaint on 8 June 2022. He said that the garden layout caused privacy concerns. He also said the garden created access difficulties and meant contractors had to gain access via neighbouring properties. The landlord had previously inspected the property and met with the resident to discuss the matters on 16 July 2021. It advised him during a telephone conversation before 26 July 2021 that it could change the garden layout. It was appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the property to assess the situation. It was reasonable for it to have updated the resident with its conclusions.
However, the landlord’s advice that it could change the garden layout was not in line with the conclusions it later reached about the same matter. The resident advised his MP on 10 November 2021 that he had understood that the planning department would first need to speak to the neighbouring resident before it could approve any changes. However, it is not clear if the resident understood this condition when the landlord said the garden could be changed. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have replied to the resident’s email of 26 July 2021, clarifying this condition to manage his expectations. This was likely to have caused him distress and inconvenience. It also would have caused him unnecessary additional time and trouble in pursuing the matter via the complaint procedure.
The landlord completed another property inspection on 12 April 2022, and it discussed the matters with the resident. It summarised the discussion in an email to him on 26 May 2022, which explained that the layout had been defined when the properties had been let. It also said it had arranged for 2 6-foot gates to be installed at the rear of the garden. It was appropriate for the landlord to have updated the resident, and it was reasonable for it to have installed the gates on 27 June 2022, to address privacy concerns. However, the resident said the new gates failed to address the privacy issues caused by the neighbour within the garden space.
The landlord arranged for a boundary specialist to reinspect the property on an undisclosed date following receipt of the complaint. They met with the resident and explained the reasons the garden boundary could not be changed. It was reasonable for the landlord to take a resolution focused approach to the matter by seeking the advice of a specialist. It repeated the conclusions it had reached in its stage 1 complaint response. It said that it was not practical to change the garden layout, which had been defined by a dividing slab pathway.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the assessment of its boundary specialist when deciding whether a change to the garden boundary could be done. This is because the specialist gave it expert evidence about this and there was no other expert evidence to the contrary. However, the landlord failed to explain why it had previously said that the boundary could be changed, subject to the outcome of the planning department’s conversation with a neighbour. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to further manage the resident’s expectations. This resulted in the resident being unclear about whether the boundary could be amended and caused him further time and trouble escalating the complaint.
The landlord had noted that a change to the garden boundary was not possible due to the design of the garden space and because of the impact this would have on the current and future tenancies. It repeated that it would not change the boundary in its final complaint response. However, there is no evidence that it got advice from the planning department or from a legal perspective to support this decision. Given the conflicting advice it had previously provided, and the nature of the privacy and garden access issues, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have sought and summarised advice from these agencies.
The resident highlighted the importance of privacy with reference to his disabilities in emails he sent to the landlord. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have demonstrated that it had taken these circumstances into consideration before making its decision. The public sector equality duty is a duty on public authorities such as the landlord to consider how their decisions affect people protected under the Equality Act 2010. They have an obligation to think about the needs of people who may be disadvantaged, or suffer inequality, when they make decisions about how they provide their services. We have not seen any evidence in the landlord’s responses to the resident that it had considered his need for a change to the garden boundary fence in view of his disability. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained if, or whether, the resident’s disability had a bearing on its decision not to change the garden layout.
The landlord’s decision to inspect the property, discuss the matter with the resident, and arrange for a boundary specialist’s inspection were reasonable under the circumstances. However, it failed to seek advice from the other agencies qualified to assess any planning or tenancy implications. This was a missed opportunity for it to evidence it had considered these factors when making its decision. The landlord also failed to clearly explain whether, or to what extent, the resident’s disabilities had been considered when reaching its decision. Therefore, taking all matters into account, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of privacy concerns related to the boundary of the garden.
When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong, and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord recognised that its response may have been disappointing, and it apologised for any frustration and distress this may have caused in its complaint responses. However, it did not identify any failings in its handling of the matter, and it did not uphold the complaint. This was a missed opportunity for it to recognise that its response to the matter may have had caused distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. We have therefore ordered the landlord to provide £200 compensation to the resident below. This award is in line with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where maladministration is found that adversely affected the resident and has not been proportionately addressed by the landlord.
Additionally, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing and write to the resident about the matter after seeking advice from the planning department and a legal representative.

Repairs to the garden fence

It is unclear if the resident raised concerns with the condition of the garden fence in the property before the landlord inspected the property on 16 July 2021. However, in his email of 26 July 2021, he said that the outer fencing had been rotting, it was leaning, and it was unsafe. He also said that the landlord used cheap fencing when replacing fencing in neighbouring properties.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of fencing. It says the repair of fences is a routine repair, which it aims to complete within 20 working days, and the renewal of fences is a programmed repair, which it aims to complete within 90 working days. We have not seen evidence to confirm when the landlord assessed the reported fence defects, or when it repaired the fence in response to the resident’s email.
Landlords are expected to keep and provide clear records of the housing services they provide. The onus is on the landlord to provide evidence that shows how it satisfied itself that the fencing repair had been completed to a satisfactory standard. Because the landlord did not provide this information, we are unable to determine the date the landlord repaired the fencing, or whether it complied with its repairs procedures. The landlord’s failure to keep and/or provide records of its handling of the fencing repair was a failing.
In an email the resident sent to his MP on 3 May 2022, he repeated that the fencing was rotten, it was cheap, and it would not last. He also reported that a rotten fence needed to be replaced in his stage 1 complaint on 8 June 2022. The landlord inspected the fencing on an undisclosed date, which was appropriate for it to inspect, but it is unclear if this was done in the correct timescale under its policy. It addressed the fencing in its stage 1 response by explaining that it was in good condition and that it would only replace fencing if it was not repairable. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the assessment of its qualified staff when reaching a decision about the condition and repair of the fencing, in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary. It was also appropriate for it to have summarised its decision and its repairs policy to the resident to manage his expectations.
The resident reported a rotten fence to the landlord again in his stage 2 complaint. He also raised concerns about the type of fencing the landlord used and gaps the fencing contained during a conversation he had with it about his complaint on 14 November 2022. The landlord responded to the matter in its final complaint response. It said it had reinspected the fencing and the gaps it contained were part of the fence style and it would not replace it for that reason.
It is clear that the resident was not happy with the type of fencing the landlord had chosen to use at the property. However, the landlord was entitled to decide on the most appropriate type of repair and style of fencing to use after its staff’s expert inspection, in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary. The landlord’s response to the resident was reasonable. While the landlord did not provide evidence to the Ombudsman to confirm when it had completed fencing repairs, the resident confirmed that the landlord had completed the repairs it was responsible for. Taking all matters into account, we have found no failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the garden fence, other than its lack of fencing repair records, which prevented us from determining whether these were timely. We have, however, made a recommendation that the landlord reinspects the condition of the fencing to make sure it is no longer rotten or leaning.
Therefore, taking all matters into account, we have found service failure in the landlord’s record keeping in response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the garden fence. We have therefore ordered the landlord to complete a self-assessment of its compliance against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management and provide us with the outcome of this.

The relocation of gas pipework

The resident said the gas pipework was located in odd places above the doors inside the property in the stage 1 complaint on 8 June 2022. He said it could have been installed more neatly, and he hoped it could be improved. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of gas. The tenancy agreement also says the landlord will keep the installations, services, fittings, and fixtures of the property in good repair.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord inspected the gas pipework in the property before providing its stage 1 response on 28 June 2022. However, it explained that, while it would be unable to replace gas pipework that was in working order, it would check with its gas team whether it could make any improvements. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it would repair burst or leaking pipework, but it does not say that it would relocate working pipework. It was reasonable for the landlord explain to the resident that it would not move pipework for cosmetic purposes to manage his expectations. It also showed a resolution focused approach by agreeing to ask its gas contractor if it could make any improvements. This was reasonable.
As previously explained, landlords are expected to keep and provide robust records of the housing services it provides. The landlord did not provide evidence to show how or when it concluded the pipework met a satisfactory standard. We are unable to determine the date the landlord’s gas contractor inspected the property. The landlord’s failure to retain and/or provide record of the gas pipework inspection was inappropriate and should be addressed by the self-assessment mentioned above. However, there was no suggestion or evidence provided by the resident that there was a failing by it to meet its above gas pipework repair obligations.
The landlord addressed the gas pipework matter again in its stage 2 response, in which it said it had inspected the pipes. It acknowledged the resident’s view that the gas pipework was unsightly. It also said that the pipes did not require a repair, and it would not move pipework for cosmetic purposes. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert assessment of its gas contractor about the condition of the pipework, in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, it was appropriate for it to have explained that it had reached its decision based upon the contractor’s qualified assessment.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord was obliged to keep the gas pipework in repair and in proper working order. There is no evidence that the pipework did not meet these standards, which the landlord had concluded following an assessment of the property, and this was also not suggested by the resident. The landlord appropriately investigated the matters and sought to manage the resident’s expectations, which was an appropriate response for it to take in response to the resident’s request. Taking all matters into account, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move gas pipework. However, we have recommended it inspect the property to assess if any outstanding gas pipework repairs are required and, if so, provide details of and a timetable for the works.

Pest control

The resident reported that there were rats inside his property to the landlord on 26 July 2021. He also said that a neighbour did not maintain their share of the garden and he had spent a lot of money on pest control treatments. He said he understood broken sewer drains to be a cause of rats and he referred to a broken drain in the garden of a neighbouring property. The landlord agreed to investigate the broken sewer drain in an email it sent to the resident on 26 May 2022. However, there is no evidence to confirm if it completed this inspection, or whether it had treated the property, before the resident raised the matter again in his stage 1 complaint on 8 June 2022. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its management of vermin and pests procedure, which says in all cases a pest control treatment should be ordered to run alongside its investigations.
The landlord’s management of vermin and pests procedure also says that it will treat rodents in some circumstances, and it would visit the site to identify the causes of the infestation. It also says that it would take action to address the potential source of the issues. The landlord confirmed to the resident’s MP on 28 October 2021 that it had held conversations with a neighbour about the condition of their garden on an undisclosed date in October 2021. However, it is unclear if the landlord had investigated the pest issues and/or determined that that the condition of their garden had caused the rodents. There is no evidence that the pest control matters were resolved following the landlord’s conversation. This was likely to have caused distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident in pursuing the matter with the landlord and via his MP.
The landlord addressed the matter in its stage 1 complaint response, in which it said that it had understood that the rodents were coming from a property that it did not own or manage. Further, that it would investigate the matter if it was provided with an address. The resident had previously reported the presence of rodents inside the property, and, in his complaint, he said that rats had been returning to the property. The landlord’s management of vermin and pests procedure says it would order a pest control treatment alongside its investigations. It was inappropriate for it not to have arranged pest control treatment in line with its procedure.
While it may be the case that the landlord did not own or manage a property that was the cause of rodents, it still had an obligation to treat the matter given it affected the properties it did manage. We would have expected the landlord to have spoken with the owners of the neighbouring property, about the broken sewer drain. Alternatively, for it to have raised the matter with environmental health or another appropriate authority to address the causes of rodent issues. The landlord’s failure to fully investigate the matters was a further failing. This resulted in the resident referring to the matter as “horrendous” when he escalated his complaint on 8 July 2022. The landlord’s failure to address the issues promptly in line with its procedure meant it did not resolve the presence of rodents at the time these were reported and , therefore, was likely to have increased the distress and inconvenience the matter caused to the resident.
The landlord agreed to complete a pest control treatment in the communal gardens in its stage 2 complaint response. Additionally, it cut back the neighbouring garden and it continued to engage with the neighbouring resident about the maintenance of their garden. These were appropriate responses for the landlord to have taken. However, it is unclear if the pest control treatment the landlord arranged resolved the pest issues. It is also unclear if the landlord has pursued the repair of the nearby broken sewer drain, which may have been a contributing factor.
The landlord’s decision to arrange pest control to address the resident’s reports of a rat infestation was reasonable. It was in line with its management of vermin and pests procedure and the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. However, the landlord failed to apologise to the resident for its delay in responding to the matters and raising pest control treatments. It also failed to consider offering compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that had likely been caused to the resident. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to put things right and regain the resident’s confidence in the landlord. Taking all matters into account, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest control issue.
Given the distress this caused the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 as compensation in recognition of the effect this had on him. This award is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for circumstances where, like here, maladministration is found that has adversely affected the resident and not been proportionately addressed by the landlord.
We have also ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing, and to arrange for a pest control specialist to assess and treat for rodents in and around the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not issue a response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 8 June 2022 until 29 June 2022. This was 5 working days later than the landlord’s 10-working-day complaint policy response timescale.
2. Did not register or acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation request of 8 July 2022, in keeping with paragraph 5.9 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time of this complaint. The Code says, if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure.
3. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 8 July 2022 until 8 December 2022. This was 87 working days later than its 20-working-day complaint policy response timescale.
4. Did not fully address the resident’s stage 2 complaint, such as by responding to his complaint about the condition of the electrics in the property and the external drains. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the Code, which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
The landlord did not consider its handling of the resident’s complaint when reviewing the housing services it had provided. This was a missed opportunity for it to consider the impact of its complaint handling delays and recognise that they may have had caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. An award of compensation for this is therefore ordered below.
The complaint handling failings had no permanent impact on the resident but may have had an adverse effect in terms of the time, trouble, and inconvenience they had likely caused to the resident. An award of £150 compensation for this is therefore ordered below. This is in line with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where maladministration is found that has adversely affected the resident and not been proportionately addressed by the landlord. Additionally, we have ordered it to write to the resident to apologise for its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
  1. Privacy concerns related to the boundary of the garden.
  2. The resident’s reports of a pest control issue.
  3. The resident’s complaint.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the garden fence.
3. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move gas pipework.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of the privacy issues and the garden layout, its response to pest control issues, and for its complaint handling failings.
2. Pay the resident £550 total compensation, made up of:
  1. £200 for time, trouble, and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident associated with the handling of privacy concerns related to the boundary of the garden.
  2. £200 for distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s response to his reports of pest control issues.
  3. £150 for time and trouble that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  1. The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.
3. Get advice from the local authority planning department and a legal representative about the practicality of changing the garden boundary. The landlord must summarise the responses to the resident in writing within 2 weeks of receipt of the advice, along with any decisions it reaches following the advice. It shall provide us with a copy of its response.
4. Complete a self-assessment of its compliance against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management and provide us with the outcome of this.
5. Arrange for a pest control specialist’s inspection and treatment to remove rodents from in and around the property. This should include an assessment of a broken sewer drain near of the property.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. Assess the condition of the boundary fencing at the property. If repairs are required, it is recommended to provide the resident with timetable for the completion of the repairs within 2 weeks of the inspection.
2. Inspect the property to assess if any outstanding gas pipework repairs are required. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and the Ombudsman details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.