Wrexham Council Faces £162,000 Bill From Tenant Damage 2026

Key Points

• There have been instances of either deliberate or wilful damage to properties by 662 tenants during the year.
• The total amount spent on the repairs amounted to £162,166.71.
• The council sent out recharges to only 82 people since many of the tenants had vacated the properties.
• £11,242.89 were recovered, which is an equivalent of 6.9% of the amount used on the repairs.
• Cllr Mike Morris wondered whether there was need to impose more stringent penalties or monitor the contract holders.
• Chairman of the committee, Cllr Paul Roberts, asked whether the council could rehouse tenants whose actions caused substantial damage to the properties.
• Rachel Powell, Chief Officer of Housing, explained that there was need to repay arrears before damage recharges while noting that there was also a responsibility to prevent homelessness.
• The council stated that it was increasing its financial and housing services to enable the tenants keep their tenancy.
• The matter was brought up at the Homes and Environment Scrutiny Committee where it was noted that the Housing Department has been doing well in reducing voided properties and improved houses to the Welsh Housing Quality Standard.

Wrexham (Wales Times) October 23, 2026 — uk/local/wrexham/">Wrexham Council is facing a repair bill of £162,166.71 after 662 social housing tenants deliberately damaged their homes in the past year, according to a report considered by the authority’s Homes and Environment Scrutiny Committee. As reported by the Leader, the council was able to recover only £11,242.89 of that amount, or 6.9%, because many of the tenants concerned had abandoned their properties.

The figures were presented as part of a wider discussion on the performance of Wrexham Council’s Housing Department, which manages more than 11,000 social homes. Committee members praised the department for reducing the number of vacant properties and for bringing homes up to the Welsh Housing Quality Standard as they become empty.

However, the same meeting heard that a minority of tenants each year create repair costs that the council says are difficult to recover. The council’s policy is to recharge tenants for damage judged to be deliberate, but officials said abandonment often prevents recovery.

How Much Damage Was Caused and How Much Was Recovered?

According to the Leader’s report of the committee discussion, 662 tenants carried out wilful or deliberate damage to their properties during the last year. The resulting repairs cost Wrexham Council £162,166.71.

The council issued recharges in 82 cases. It recovered £11,242.89, leaving £150,923.82 unrecovered. The recovered sum represents 6.9% of the total damage bill.

The council’s published tenant guidance states that tenants must repair or replace items damaged deliberately, recklessly or through neglect, including damage caused by someone for whom they are responsible under the tenancy agreement. If they do not do so, the council may carry out the work and charge them; it normally asks for payment before the work is done.

What Did Councillors Say About the Recovery Rate?

Cllr Mike Morris said the recovery rate was too low and asked what measures or sanctions were available against contract holders. As reported by the Leader, he said: “Really 6% is a very low figure in terms of what we’re getting back.”

He acknowledged the difficulty of payment plans where tenants cannot afford to pay, but questioned whether small weekly repayments would ever recover the full amount. He also asked whether contract holders should remain under a “watching brief” because of their future behaviour and how they look after council properties.

Cllr Morris said the unrecovered costs represented a “significant drain” on the money coming into the council.

Should Damaging Tenants Be Rehoused?

Committee chair Cllr Paul Roberts raised concerns about fairness for long-standing tenants who maintain their homes. As reported by the Leader, he said residents in his ward had expressed frustration when they saw someone move to another street and receive a newly refurbished property with a new kitchen and bathroom after leaving their previous home in an “appalling condition”.

He asked:

“Should we be rehousing existing contract holders when they’ve created significant damage to their property?”

The question highlights a tension between holding tenants accountable for damage and the council’s wider legal and practical responsibilities around homelessness prevention.

Why Can Wrexham Council Not Recover More Money?

Chief Officer for Housing Rachel Powell told councillors that the issue was complex and that there were no simple solutions. As reported by the Leader, she said that where contract holders also have rent arrears, the council must prioritise repayment of rent before pursuing recharges for damage.

She said the council has financial inclusion officers and has increased “softer support” through housing support officers based in each estate office. Their role is to help tenants before situations reach the point where the council applies a recharge for wilful damage.

Powell also explained that the council has duties around homelessness prevention. If it ended a tenancy or refused to allocate a property because of a tenant’s previous behaviour, that person could later present as homeless and require support from another part of the council.

She said the most efficient approach was to support people to live in a way that allows them to retain their tenancy, preventing them from returning through the system and requiring new accommodation solutions.

What Does This Mean for Wrexham’s Housing Service?

The discussion came despite broader positive performance in Wrexham’s housing service. The Leader reported that members of the Homes and Environment Scrutiny Committee praised the department for reducing void properties across the council’s more than 11,000 social homes and improving properties to the Welsh Housing Quality Standard as they become vacant.

Wrexham Council’s scrutiny structure includes the Homes and Environment Scrutiny Committee, which examines housing and environmental services and meets regularly. Its published remit includes focusing on the delivery of homes that meet people’s needs in well-connected communities.

The council’s tenant handbook also distinguishes between deliberate damage and criminal damage suffered by an innocent tenant. It says the council will pay to repair damage caused by crime where a crime number and signed declaration are provided, but will not pay where the tenant or someone they are responsible for caused the damage.

Background of the Development

Wrexham County Borough Council operates a large social housing portfolio of more than 11,000 properties. Its Housing Department has been working to reduce the number of void properties—homes left empty between tenancies—and to refurbish them to the Welsh Housing Quality Standard as they become available.

Under the council’s tenancy conditions, tenants are responsible for damage caused deliberately, recklessly or through neglect. The council may complete the repair and recharge the tenant, normally seeking payment before carrying out non-urgent work.

The latest figures were discussed by the Homes and Environment Scrutiny Committee, a body made up of councillors who are not members of the council’s Executive Board. The committee scrutinises council services and can question officers about performance, policy and financial pressures.

The £162,166.71 repair bill and £11,242.89 recovery figure were reported by the Leader in its coverage of the committee meeting. The report did not identify individual tenants or specify the nature of the damage in each case.

Prediction: How Could This Affect Wrexham Tenants and Residents?

For Wrexham social housing tenants, the development could lead to closer attention on how properties are maintained and how support is offered before tenancies fail. The council has said it is increasing housing support and financial inclusion services to intervene earlier, which may benefit tenants struggling with rent arrears, money pressures or property upkeep.

For tenants who pay rent and care for their homes, the concerns raised by Cllr Paul Roberts may increase pressure on the council to explain how it allocates refurbished homes and whether previous property damage should affect future housing decisions. However, Rachel Powell’s comments indicate that homelessness-prevention duties will remain a major constraint on any tougher allocation or eviction approach.

For council taxpayers and wider residents, the unrepaired recovery gap could continue to draw scrutiny because money spent on avoidable repairs is money not available for other housing priorities. The council has not announced a new sanction policy; its stated direction remains early support, rent-arrears prioritisation and tenancy sustainment.