Wandle Housing Association Limited (202337457)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 4-bedroom house. She made a service request in August 2023 that a piece of coving had fallen from the ceiling and struck her on the head. The landlord attended to this and a second repair to a separate piece of coving. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about the possibility of further coving falling off. The landlord instructed a surveyor and all work was completed in December 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of a repair to the property’s coving.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress prior to our investigation which, in our opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of a repair to the property’s coving satisfactorily.
4. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a repair to the property’s coving

5. The landlord provided a response which acknowledged the failings we identified in this report and offered fair compensation. This was reasonable and consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

The handling of the complaint

6. Although the landlord’s initial complaint handling at stage 1 was in line with its own complaint handling procedure its stage 2 response was not. It failed to identify the resident’s initial escalation, which was part of the reason for its delayed stage 2 response.
7. The landlord failed to acknowledge this in its stage 2 complaint response and as such did not offer any redress or show any learning.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at

8. The resident informed us that a piece of fallen coving caused her physical injury and anxiety. They have submitted a public liability insurance claim through the landlord’s insurer. As this matter involves personal injury, should she wish top progress this concern, it is most appropriately addressed by the courts, which can rely on independent medical evidence to determine the cause and duration of any harm suffered. Accordingly, we have not pursued further investigation into this aspect. However, we are able to consider whether the landlord should offer compensation for any distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
9. In the resident’s complaint to us she raised issues with a leak and the property’s ceiling. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be raised directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of a repair to the property’s coving

10. The landlord has not disputed it was responsible for the repair to the coving which is in line with its tenancy agreement.
11. The landlord was responsive to the initial service request regarding the coving and attended within 4 days of it being reported on 25 August 2023. This was an appropriate response considering the resident’s reported anxiety.
12. The landlord’s repair log of 29 September 2023 indicates it fixed a second piece of coving which had fallen off on 18 September 2023. The resident has disputed this and the landlord’s complaint responses state that although it attempted repairs in October 2023 the full repair to the coving was not completed until December 2023.
13. In the landlord’s complaint responses it acknowledged there was an unreasonable delay with the second repair. It said the repair should have been fully completed within 28 days which reflects its commitment within its responsive repair policy. It apologised and offered the resident £100 compensation for this.
14. The landlord at stage 1 failed to address the resident’s complaint about the injury caused by the falling piece of coving. We have seen emails where the resident was chasing a reply to this with no response which was not appropriate. The landlord rectified this in its stage 2 complaint response by providing the resident with an insurance claim form with clear claim instructions. It also apologised and offered her £200 compensation for its failure. It also offered the resident £100 compensation within its complaint response for the distress and inconvenience caused.
15. The landlord provided a response which acknowledged its failings identified in this report. Its total offer of £400 compensation was fair, and consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles. Accordingly, a finding of reasonable redress has been made.

16. The landlord appropriately followed its own complaint procedures at stage 1 by acknowledging the complaint of 31 August 2023 within 5 working days. Although the stage 1 response of 20 September 2023 was issued 1 day beyond the 10-working-day timeframe set out in its complaints policy, this minor delay did not negatively impact the resident.
17. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it showed it understood the resident’s anxiety and arranged the rest of the coving to be checked by a supervisor. Although its offer of £100 was a positive step to take it failed to acknowledge and respond to the personal injury aspect of her complaint. Its failure to do so caused the resident to escalate her complaint.
18. The landlord however failed to escalate the resident’s complaint on 27 September 2023. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”), if a complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2. The Code does not require the resident to explicitly request escalation. Therefore, the dissatisfaction expressed by the resident on 27 September 2023 should have triggered an escalation. The landlord’s failure to do so resulted in the resident having to chase a response on 6 and 30 October 2023.
19. The landlord treated the resident’s email of 30 October 2023 as the escalation request and acknowledged it on the same day. However, this acknowledgement should have occurred within 5 working days of 27 September 2023. As such, the landlord’s response was not reasonable.
20. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 January 2024, which was 76 working days after the escalation date of 27 September 2023. This exceeded the 25-working-day timeframe (including five days for acknowledgement) set out in its complaints policy and the Code by 51 working days. This was unreasonable and delayed the resident’s ability to escalate her complaint to us. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have evidenced it had kept the resident updated an advised her of any possible extensions.
21. Given the poor complaint handling and lack of redress offered we find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance where there were minor failures by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and fully put them right.
22. It is concerning the landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures in its delayed stage 2 response. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to write to the resident and apologise for this.
23. We note that the landlord’s complaint handling has been subject to a special investigation by us. The landlord has since committed to improving its service and has developed a plan to address identified issues. In light of this, we have not issued a learning order in relation to complaint handling.

Learning

24. Although the landlord’s complaint handling was poor it has had made efforts to rectify that.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s record keeping about the repair to the second piece of coving was unclear meaning we did not know the correct date it was repaired.

Communication

26. The landlord was responsive in all communication other than its complaint handling, which has been covered in this report.