Wandle Housing Association Limited (202517573)

Decision
Case ID	202517573
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Wandle Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	15 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives with her son in a property that flooded which she reported to the landlord. She told the landlord her son was autistic and she needed a quicker repair. The landlord’s handling of the leak and the related repairs were the subject of her complaints.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. A leak causing damp and mould.
   2. Damage to property and personal belongings.
3. We investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found the landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of:
   1. A leak causing damp and mould.
   2. Damage to property and personal belongings.
5. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The leak, damp, and mould

6. The landlord completed repairs in line with its repairs policy. It acknowledged it should have installed dehumidifiers sooner and it did not prioritise follow–on works. It offered the resident proportionate compensation for the detriment this caused her.

Damage to property and personal belongings

7. The landlord was not liable for the resident’s damaged belongings. It advised her to claim on insurance for any personal injury or damage to personal property. It agreed to remove her carpets as a goodwill gesture. It delayed arranging to remove the carpets and its communication about the damaged flooring was confusing. However, it offered the resident reasonable redress for these service failures.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We have made a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of: damage to property and personal belongings the leak causing damp and mould on the basis it pays the resident the £1,066 compensation it offered her in its complaint responses. It should pay this to her direct and not offset against arrears where they exist.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 February 2025	The resident made a stage 1 complaint about a flood that damaged her belongings, a delayed repair appointment, and the distress and inconvenience the situation caused her.
10 February 2025	The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint.
17 February 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It summarised its handling of the leak and apologised for inconvenience and frustration this caused the resident. It offered her £200 compensation for damage to her property. It also referred her to its financial advice service.
21 March 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She rejected the landlord’s offer of £200 as she said it did not cover the property damage, disruption to her family, or repair delays. She said it left her without heating and hot water for an extended time which was inconvenient. She said she had to rearrange an appointment because she needed heating and hot water due to her son’s autism. She also said she had to stay with family because of the damage to her property. She said it did not deliver dehumidifiers when it said and it passed its responsibility onto her contents insurance where she had to pay £450 excess. She said the landlord should have accepted accountability for the damage.
24 March 2025	The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint.
29 April 2025	The landlord sent the resident its final complaint response. It acknowledged it had not prioritised repairs, provided dehumidifiers or temporary heating, and its communication was poor. It also acknowledged it had not considered the costs of carpet removal or recognised the financial loss and distress the flood caused. It acknowledged it had not considered her reference to her son’s autism when scheduling works. It said it handled the flood in line with its repair policy. It upheld the complaint and said to put matters right it would plan further repairs after June 2025, as she requested, and consider offering temporary accommodation. It said she could make a claim about her health concerns to its insurance provider, and it would reimburse her electric and flooring removal costs when it received quotes and bills. It referred her to its financial advice team. It offered her £250 for distress and inconvenience, £250 for time and trouble, £200 for repair delays, and £166 for loss of heating and hot water, totalling £866.
15 August 2025	The landlord sent a further final response to the resident. It said it inspected the property on 12 August 2025 and raised an order to complete further works on 21 August 2025. It said the floors did not need repairing. It said there was no signs of damp and mould but acknowledged the resident had cleaned this and asked her to report any future signs. It said as there were no outstanding repairs, so it did not need to move her. It was not responsible for the damage to her personal belongings and she should claim for this through its contents insurance. It said it provided compensation in its stage 2 response, and it agreed to remove the damaged flooring as a goodwill gesture, but it would not provide new floor coverings or redecoration. It said she could install new flooring her insurer had already reimbursed her for, and it would close the stage 2 complaint when it completed the repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. To put matters right she said the landlord should apologise, complete outstanding repairs, and consider offering temporary alternative accommodation until the property is habitable.

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.

Complaint	The leak, damp, and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not considered

9. The resident said the landlord’s handling of the leak, flooding, damp, and mould affected her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have considered

10. The landlord’s repair policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It says it will only do repairs out of hours if there is a direct risk that cannot wait until normal hours. If it attends out of hours it will make the problem safe and return to complete the work in normal hours. It says it will complete routine repairs within 28 days.
11. The resident reported a leak on 9 February 2025. The landlord attended within 24 hours as an emergency appointment. It stopped the leak and arranged an appointment to complete follow-on works. It booked a routine repair for 5 March 2025. These actions were in line with its repairs policy.
12. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 February 2025. She was unhappy about the time she would have to wait for follow-on works. She told the landlord her son was autistic and she could not be without heating and hot water until 5 March 2024. The landlord rearranged the appointment for 11 February 2025.
13. The resident also told the landlord she was unhappy about the damage to her belongings and the distress and inconvenience of the flood. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the inconvenience and empathised with the upset and disruption the flood caused the household. It offered her £200 compensation for property damage.
14. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 February 2025 because she was concerned the leak caused damp and mould. The landlord inspected the next day. It found it needed to complete a mould and stain treatment, supply a dehumidifier, and repair skirting boards. It also said it might need to do further work after the resident’s insurance company removed the flooring. It completed the mould wash on 14 March 2025.
15. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 March 2025, because she was unhappy with the compensation and the landlord’s actions following the leak. The landlord upheld her stage 2 complaint. It said it booked a repair appointment on 7 April 2025, and a further appointment on 28 May 2025. However, it acknowledged there were no records it completed this and the repairs remained outstanding. It also agreed it did not prioritise the follow-on works and did not consider her individual circumstances and her son’s needs. It recognised this caused her time and trouble rearranging the appointment. It also acknowledged it delayed providing a dehumidifier and that its communication about the works was unclear and caused the resident stress and uncertainty. It offered the resident £866 extra compensation at stage 2. This included £166 for loss of heating and hot water, £200 for repair delays, £250 for distress and inconvenience, and £250 for time and trouble.
16. The landlord said it would ask the repairs team to contact the resident and agree a schedule of works for June 2025 and consider temporary accommodation. The resident requested June 2025 because of her son’s exams. It directed her to its liability insurance and asked her to provide receipts for her increased energy costs and quotes for rubbish removal. It also gave the resident details of how to access the landlord’s support fund and found learning from complaint. The resident said she was happy with the landlord’s stage 2 response and the compensation on the condition it completed the works and removed the carpets.
17. Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord acknowledged its failings, offered compensation, and took action to put things right. It also showed learning from the complaint. Our remedies guidance suggests awards between £100 and £600 where there were failings which adversely affected the resident.  We found the overall compensation the landlord offered the resident was reasonable redress to put things right.
18. The resident reported further damp and mould issues and complained to the landlord in September 2025. This complaint is still in the landlord’s complaint process and we did not consider the issues from this complaint in our investigation. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s final response she can bring her complaint to us.

Complaint	Damage to property and personal belongings
Finding	Reasonable redress

19. The resident’s tenancy agreement says she is responsible for insuring her personal possessions, furniture, decorations, and other household contents. The landlord’s tenancy handbook says she is responsible for all floor coverings, except flooring fitted by the landlord in kitchens and bathrooms.
20. The leak was outside the landlord’s control and it responded within its emergency repair timeframe. The landlord advises residents to have contents insurance, and it has its own liability insurance which residents can claim against for personal injury and damage to property.
21. The landlord used its discretion to offer the resident £200 compensation to recognise damage to her property in its stage 1 response. It also said it encouraged residents to have home insurance, but it was not clear whether it was directing her to claim on her insurance. The landlord did not give the resident details of its liability insurance or explain how she could claim for damage to her property and belongings. This was a missed opportunity for it to explain its responsibilities and liability for any damage caused.
22. The resident claimed on her insurance. She was unhappy because there was a £450 excess, and because it did not cover the cost of removing the damaged flooring. In its stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to consider the costs of carpet removal if she provided quotes. It also gave her details of how to access its support fund. The landlord was not responsible for removing the damaged carpets and this was a goodwill gesture.
23. The landlord decided to remove the carpets and hallway flooring itself which it scheduled for 5 August 2025. However, its repair planning meant it did not fully remove the flooring and its poor communication caused a misunderstanding about the agreed works. This caused the resident frustration and time pursuing the removal of bathroom and kitchen flooring.
24. The landlord inspected the property on 12 August 2024. There was a delay between the landlord agreeing to remove the flooring and its inspection. It agreed to do this in June 2025, but the resident had to chase the landlord in July 2025.
25. Following its inspection the landlord told the resident the concrete floors did not need any work and she could fit the flooring her home contents insurance reimbursed her for. It said it did not find the kitchen and bathroom flooring needed replacing and it did not agree to redecorate. The landlord was entitled to decide what works it needed to complete, based upon its inspection.
26. It listed the outstanding works it agreed, raised a new works order, and said it would close the stage 2 complaint when the works were complete. It said it did not agree to move her into temporary accommodation because the works did not warrant this. It offered to move the date for the outstanding repairs forward to 16 August 2025.
27. The landlord also referred the resident to information about how to claim against its insurance for personal injury and damage to personal property. This remains open to her.
28. There was failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damage to property and personal belongings. However, when we considered its overall compensation and its attempts to put things right we found the landlord offered reasonable redress.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

29. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 1.
30. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints in keeping with its complaint policy timescales. Its responses were in line with our dispute resolution principles – be fair, learn from outcomes, and put matters right.
31. The landlord sent a further response to the resident on 12 August 2025 to update her on the commitments it made in its stage 2 response. It said it would close the complaint when it completed the repairs and gave a timeline which was good complaint handling practice.
32. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Communication

33. The landlord’s communication showed it understood the resident’s complaint. It empathised with her circumstances and concerns. Its stage 2 response was thorough, addressed all her complaints, and provided a clear outcome.