London Borough of Wandsworth (202331487)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat. She has explained she has mental health conditions that were affected by her property’s condition but the landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for her household. After previously reporting multiple repair issues to the landlord for a number of years since she moved in, the resident complained she still had outstanding toilet, window, door, extractor fan, and damp and mould works at her property. She disagreed with it saying it had access and contact issues for the repairs and wanted these and other issues fixed without further investigation. The resident also wanted compensation for the resulting costs, damages, distress, and ill-health she reported.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of multiple internal repairs and damp and mould at the resident’s property.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of internal repairs, damp, and mould.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs, damp, and mould

6. The landlord did not appropriately record, communicate about, or prevent long delays in its handling of the resident’s repair and damp and mould reports, and most of these are still outstanding. The apologies and compensation it offered were not proportionate to put things right.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not correctly identify, log, communicate about, or prevent delays in its handling of the resident’s complaints. It also did not try and put things right for its poor complaint handling.

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 did not investigate

8. The resident told us that the condition of her property has caused her stress that has affected her mental health conditions and has damaged her belongings and caused her costs, including from damp and mould. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused, and a damages claim for her belongings and costs. The courts and insurers are best placed to deal with this type of dispute, as they will have the benefit of independent medical and other expert advice to decide on the causes of any injuries, damages, and costs and how long they lasted. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated she was aware of outstanding repairs at her property since she moved there in 2010. She raised a formal complaint in May 2024. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the issues. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs earlier than May 2023, as this was 12 months before her formal complaint.
10. The resident has raised other repair issues in her complaint to us, which happened before and after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised complaints with it about bath, radiator, boiler, worktop, and tap repairs as part of the complaint that exhausted the complaints procedure in September 2024. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues yet.

What we did investigate

11. The landlord recorded it tried to inspect the resident’s previously reported toilet cistern repairs on 7 May 2023 but that it was not given access for this. It noted it therefore closed the order for this after making the repair temporarily safe, which it recorded completing work for on 9 May 2023. The landlord’s tenancy conditions made it responsible for such toilet repairs and its repairs procedure said it would do them in 3 working days, so it made this safe in that timescale. However, it is concerning it did not note why it was not given access or try to rearrange the inspection and a permanent repair instead of closing the order, as it was still responsible for repairing the toilet.
12. On 27 June 2023, the landlord recorded it did some work to make good the resident’s splintering kitchen and bedroom door frames, which had also previously been reported and noted as having access issues for. Its tenancy conditions and repairs procedure made it responsible for repairing the door frames in 20 working days. However, it is of concern it raised the door repairs again almost a year later on 4 June 2024 because it accepted the work was still outstanding. The landlord noted it could not get access to repair the doors in the meantime and so had previously closed this order but it was inappropriate for it to have again not recorded why or any attempts to rearrange this.
13. The landlord then noted on 7 and 8 March 2024 that works were raised to find and repair leaks from the resident’s toilet’s pipes. However, it recorded it could not arrange an appointment because it said it was hard to contact the resident and that she then told it the work would affect her privacy. The landlord therefore could not repair the leaks in its repairs procedure’s 7-working-day timescale. This time it correctly noted why it could not do so and why it was difficult to make an appointment for the work. The landlord’s tenancy conditions also made the resident responsible for agreeing to give it access at reasonable times for repairs and so it was understandable it could not do this at the time when there was not an emergency.
14. On 16 March 2024, the landlord fitted extractor fans in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom and on 18 and 22 March 2024 it recorded raising orders to make appointments to fit bedroom and toilet extractor fans. It also noted raising an order on the latter date to arrange a mould wash appointment at her property. However, the landlord only recorded the resident’s contact preference being email because she could not answer the phone at work and that appointments for the repairs were to be arranged. This meant it did not do these repairs its tenancy conditions made it responsible for in its repairs procedure’s 20-working-day timescale, which was inappropriate. The landlord told us it could not complete the extractor fan works due to a lack of access but it did not note its attempts to do so, which was unreasonable.
15. It was also inappropriate that the resident then had to complain to the landlord on 15 May 2024 that the above repairs were delayed and still outstanding, and that she had to chase it about these again on 23 June 2024. It did repair her leaking toilet cistern on 3 July 2024 after it raised this again on 25 June 2024. However, the landlord’s repairs procedure said it had to do the repair in 3 working days and it only did it after 6 working days. This was also almost 14 months after its temporary repair to the toilet in May 2023. Therefore, the fact the landlord did not record trying to make the repair permanent, or why it could not get access for this in the meantime, raises concerns about whether it could have stopped the leak from happening in June 2024. Also, given its difficulties contacting and agreeing appointments with her, and her reported mental health vulnerabilities, it is concerning it did not either record or check if it needed to make reasonable adjustments for these, which might have helped it make contact and repairs.
16. We can see the landlord and the resident disagreed about what happened during the above toilet cistern repair regarding behaviour towards its operatives making this more difficult. However, we do not have the evidence to be able to find out what happened and it is not our role to do so but to decide if the landlord appropriately followed its repair obligations or put things right when it did not. It agreed on 10 July 2024 to contact the resident again to make mould wash and redecorating, extractor fan, window, and door frame appointments with her. The landlord then agreed to her request to complete the window repair on 21 August 2024 before the other works and to wait for her to agree appointments for the remaining repairs. It also accepted she was usually unavailable during working hours and needed prearranged calls, meetings, and visits.
17. While it was positive the landlord repaired the resident’s windows and agreed to arrange the other repairs with her, its emails with her said she previously chased it about these and other repairs on 30 January 2024 and 4 March 2024. It also accepted she made earlier reports about the repairs to it in 2023 before it had difficulties contacting her and she chased it again in 2024. This meant that, even if the landlord could not reach the resident to arrange the repairs in 2023, it should have started trying to do so again from January 2024 instead of from March, June, and July 2024. However, there is no evidence it did so or a record of the unsuccessful attempts it said it made to call her, which is inappropriate.
18. It is also concerning that, after the landlord continued to agree on 4 September 2024 to arrange the remaining repairs with the resident, she told us these were still outstanding. She said its information about a lack of access for the works was wrong and that it missed appointments and delayed the repairs. The resident explained this caused her distress and inconvenience, affected her mental health conditions, and meant she had to pay for belongings damaged by damp and mould and to maintain her property. However, we can see the landlord gave her details on 7 March 2024 to make a damages claim to it, in line with its redress policy.
19. The landlord went on to record closing the resident’s door repairs on 28 November 2024, as it said it could not get access to do these. It also told us it previously could not get access or responses from her about arranging repairs on 12 and 19 July 2024 and 1 and 21 August 2024, apart from for her windows, or when it contacted her again about inspecting these on 17 February 2025 and 14 July 2025. The landlord explained the resident also did not respond to the calling cards it left her or when it visited without making an appointment, although it did not give us any records of these. However, it did show it tried to contact her on the above dates and on 17 September 2025. The landlord also told us arranging the works was made more difficult by the resident only wanting weekend appointments but it again gave us no evidence of this, which was inappropriate.
20. The landlord was therefore responsible for failures in appropriately recording, communicating about, following up, and completing the resident’s multiple internal repairs and damp and mould works. Its complaint responses accepted there were failings in its handling of these and apologised for not responding fully or satisfactorily about them, delaying raising her toilet repair and completing other repairs, and not communicating consistently, which was reasonable. The landlord also offered to discuss and arrange the outstanding works with the resident, acknowledged her contact preferences, and awarded £100 compensation for her distress and inconvenience and another £100 for the repair delays. It added that it identified learning for its staff on communicating clearly, behaving professionally, raising timely work orders, and following up appointments.
21. The landlord therefore took some suitable steps to try and put things right and learn from the outcome of the resident’s case, in line with our dispute resolution principles for it to do so. There is also evidence that it had difficulty contacting or getting her to respond to its attempts to make repair appointments, and that she asked it to put other works on hold for her August 2024 window repairs. This meant the landlord was not responsible for all of the delayed and outstanding works in the resident’s case. However, there was maladministration in its failure to keep full, clear, and accessible records of its actions and communication for her multiple remaining repairs, its long delays in following these up with her, and it not communicating in line with her preferences. The landlord’s apologies and compensation offer were not proportionate to put these right and it has still not shown that the resident’s outstanding works have been done.
22. Our remedies guidance recommends up to £600 compensation to recognise when the above failings have adversely affected the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s £200 offer was not proportionate to fully put things right for her in line with our guidance. We have ordered it to apologise and pay this and another £400 compensation to the resident to do so under the guidance. We have also ordered the landlord to contact her again in line with her communication preferences to confirm how she would like to be contacted, what relevant household vulnerabilities and reasonable adjustments she wants recorded, and her availability for it to complete her outstanding repairs. It should make reasonable attempts to meet the resident’s preferences in line with its policies and procedures and her vulnerabilities, and it should explain why in writing with full reasons if it cannot do so.
23. We have further ordered the landlord to carry out a case review of its actions, communication, and record keeping for the multiple internal repairs and damp and mould at the resident’s property to identify learning to stop the failings identified by this investigation happening again. It should consider its practices, policies, procedures, and processes for handling repeated lengthy and repeated requests for works, communication, and access issues, and recording and making reasonable adjustments for vulnerabilities. The landlord should give copies of its findings to both us and the resident.

24. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord’s corporate complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This also says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 2 working days.
25. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 25 June 2024 after accepting the complaint from her on 23 June 2024, it gave us evidence she previously attempted to make the complaint to it on 30 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. However, it did not acknowledge or respond to her earlier attempts to complain to it in line with its policy, which was inappropriate. The landlord instead only acknowledged the resident’s first attempted complaint to it from January 2024 100 working days later than its policy’s acknowledgement timescale, which was an unreasonably long and unexplained delay. It then only responded to the complaint on 10 July 2024, which was 103 working days later than its policy’s response timescale, and so also an inappropriately long and unexplained delay. The landlord’s stage 1 response also only apologised to the resident for “the short delay” and did not otherwise recognise or try and put this right, which was unreasonable.
26. The resident’s 12 July 2024 stage 2 complaint was acknowledged within the landlord’s policy’s acknowledgement timescale on 15 July 2024. However, its 4 September 2024 stage 2 response was sent 18 working days later than the policy’s response timescale. It was inappropriate that this response too was delayed without an explanation or acceptance of this and that it did not try to put this right either. The landlord later told us it found the resident’s stage 1 complaint was originally incorrectly logged in May 2024 as a service request and that it had updated its processes to better sort and correctly log service requests and complaints. However, there is no evidence it explained this to her, offered her a remedy for this, or identified her first attempted stage 1 complaint in January 2024, which was unreasonable.
27. The landlord’s senior estate manager instead replied to the resident’s January 2024 complaint as a service request on 7 March 2024 after she chased it about this from 3 March 2024. It therefore missed its earlier incorrect logging of her complaint as a service request, which is concerning. When issued, the landlord’s complaint responses did try and address the resident’s complaints about her outstanding repairs, damp, and mould and it appropriately asked her for more information about why she felt its stage 1 response was incorrect. This meant it was understandable when its stage 2 response did not give more information about this because she did not respond to it about this. The landlord also took reasonable steps to try and take suitable learning from the resident’s case in its complaint responses to improve its communication and repairs service.
28. The landlord’s delays, poor communication, and failure to put things right for the resident’s complaints meant it was responsible for maladministration in its complaint handling. It is therefore ordered to apologise and pay her £150 compensation to recognise her time and trouble from its poor complaint handling. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for when such failures have adversely affected the resident. The landlord is also recommended to review its staff’s training needs on correctly identifying, logging, responding to, and putting right complaints, in line with its policy.

Learning

29. The landlord’s complaint responses appropriately identified learning for its staff on clear communication, professional behaviour, the timely raising of work orders, and on following up after appointments. It also later recognised the need for better processes to correctly sort between and log service requests and complaints. However, the landlord did not identify all of its missed and delayed repairs, complaint responses, and opportunities to put things right.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord did not give us full, clear, and accessible records of its actions and communication for the resident’s repairs or record the vulnerabilities for her household she reported.

Communication

31. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact preferences but it did not always follow these or communicate clearly, regularly, or proactively with her.