London Borough of Wandsworth (202225690)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225690

Wandsworth Council

8 October 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the paving in the garden.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, who is a local authority. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The landlord records that the resident is vulnerable due to a diagnosis of Addison’s disease.
The resident first contacted the landlord on 21 April 2020 to advise that the paving in the garden was uneven and was sinking. The resident’s daughter had tripped over on the paving. The landlord responded on 13 May 2020, it apologised for the delay in responding and advised that the covid-19 pandemic had led to a backlog of emails. The landlord asked for photos of the paving, which the resident sent on the same day. The landlord responded on 3 June 2020 and stated that landscaping works was not the responsibility of the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 30 December 2020 to report that she had tripped over the paving and considered it to be a hazard. The resident followed up on 3 February 2021 to ask for the paving to be repaired because it was causing harm and distress. The landlord advised on 21 March 2021 that it did not consider that it was responsible for repairs to the paving.
The resident first complained to the landlord about the paving on 11 June 2021. The resident expressed frustration that the paving in the garden was sinking and that both her and her daughter had tripped and injured themselves on it. The resident complained again on 2 March 2022 that the paving was dangerous and that she had fallen again, the resident expressed that this was not a landscaping issue but a hazard to her health. The resident told the landlord that if it did not fix the paving in the next 30 days, she would obtain 3 quotes for the repair work and invoice the landlord for the cost.
In June 2022, the resident explained to the landlord that she had covered the paving with artificial grass and decking. The resident requested that the landlord visit to assess the paving. The landlord agreed and visited the resident on 27 July 2022. The landlord noted that the damage to the paving may be as a result of a drain run in the vicinity which was causing the paving to sink. The landlord accepted that the issue was not landscaping and fell within their responsibilities because it related to drainage. The resident stated the landlord told her to contact Occupational Health to see if she could get a grant to complete the works.
A speciality plumber inspected the drains in August 2022. It was identified that the base of the soil vent pipe was fractured and was likely to be contributing to the subsidence in the garden. A works orders were raised on 31 August 2022 and 28 September 2022. The resident confirmed in September 2024 that the works have not been completed.
The resident contacted the landlord again in October 2022 to request a response to her complaint so that she could escalate the matter to this Service. The resident chased a response again on in January and February 2023 but did not receive a response.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 March 2023. It apologised for the lack of communication and accepted that the works had been incorrectly noted as gardening and landscaping works when the matter was first raised which caused a delay in it inspecting the paving. It also noted that it should not have told the resident to contact Occupational Heath as the matter is a repair issue. The landlord stated that the plumber had identified works that were required to repair the sinking paving, but access would be required via the neighbour’s garden. The landlord directed the resident to its insurers to make a personal injury claim.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated on 17 March 2023. The resident contacted the landlord again on 26 April 2023 to explain she had contacted the landlord’s insurers who had advised that too much time had passed for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The resident also requested that the landlord reimburse her for the cost of the artificial grass and decking.
The stage 2 complaint response was provided on 17 May 2023. The landlord stated that an order had been raised for the plumber to repair the drain in the garden and for the paving slabs to be re-laid. The landlord offered £200 compensation for the delay in completing the repairs, and £500 for the artificial grass and decking if the resident could evidence the out of pocket expense. It advised it would monitor the contractor to ensure the work was completed.
The landlord rejected the resident’s request for compensation for distress as it stated it was not clear what distress she had experienced as a result of the paving. The landlord apologised that the resident was not able to make a personal injury claim, but noted that the resident had not requested compensation for personal injury until 2023 when the injury occurred in 2020.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the paving in the garden.

S11 of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985 makes landlords responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters and external pipes.
There was a delay of over 2 years from the resident first reporting the issue to the landlord accepting the repair as one that it was responsible for. The landlord told the resident on at least 3 occasions that it was a gardening or landscaping issue which was the responsibility of the resident. This was an inappropriate response and caused a delay and inconvenience to the resident. The resident continued to assert that the paving was dangerous and was the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord should have inspected the paving before determining who was responsible for the repair, that it did not was a failure.
The first report of the paving was in April 2020 which was during the first coronavirus national lockdown. This meant the landlord would not have been able to undertake works at this time. It is understandable that there would be some delay to repairs following the lifting of government restrictions due to the backlog of works landlords had at the time. However, the landlord failed to act when restrictions were lifted which caused inconvenience and distress.
After inspecting the paving, the landlord suggested to the resident that she contact occupational health to see if they would support the paving repairs. This was inappropriate and suggests that the landlord was not taking ownership of the repair. The resident was evidently distressed by this as she wanted the landlord to complete the repair.
The resident has confirmed that at the time of this report, the paving has not been fixed. The landlord states its contractor has completed some works but needs to access the resident’s neighbour’s garden to complete the repairs to the drains. The works order was first raised in August and September 2022 but has not been completed. While the need to access the neighbour’s garden is outside of the control of the landlord, it has not provided any evidence that it is proactively addressing this to ensure the works can be completed. This is an inappropriate response and suggests that the landlord has not taken the resident’s concerns seriously, which is a failure.
There is no evidence to suggest the landlord has appropriately managed its contractor or provided sufficient oversight to ensure that the works are completed. The landlord has not provided the resident with updates on when the works are expected to take place which is a failure.
The resident raised her concerns about the safety of the paving on at least 5 occasions before making a complaint. The landlord often failed to respond to the resident’s contact or was vague in its responses. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who was evidently upset at the condition of the paving. The landlord failed to reassure the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously, or manage her expectations.
The resident first informed the landlord that her daughter had tripped on the paving and suffered an injury on 21 April 2020, the resident informed the landlord that she herself had also tripped and been injured on 30 December 2020. There was a delay in the landlord inspecting the paving, even after the report of an injury. This was inappropriate and is a failure.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord directed the resident to its insurers so that a personal injury claim could be made. This was over 3 years from when the resident first notified the landlord of the injury. While the landlord stated that the resident did not specify she wanted compensation for the injury until after 3 years, the landlord should have provided the resident with its insurance details when first put on notice about the injury, that it did not is a failure.
The resident told the landlord that she had a disability and that her condition was worsened by stress. The resident made clear to the landlord that the condition of the paving and her fears over its safety were causing stress and impacting her health. The resident told the landlord that the stress was “exacerbating my illness” and that she felt “ignored”.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took steps to support the resident or offer advice. This was a failure given the vulnerabilities of the resident. The resident’s distress was evident and clearly aggravated by the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs, provide updates, or respond to the resident’s correspondence. Furthermore, it is evident that the landlord did not have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to consider the needs of disabled residents when providing its services.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights cited the tone of communication with residents was a major factor that impacted on the service the resident received. The report cited that when the tone of the landlord’s response “dismiss[ed] a resident’s lived experiences”, it resulted in the resident feeling they had received unfavourable treatment. The evidence indicates the tone of the landlord’s communication created such a situation.
When the resident request compensation for distress and inconvenience, the landlord responded that it was not clear what distress the resident had experienced as a result of the defective paving. This was inappropriate as it undermined and trivialised the resident’s experience. The landlord was dismissive of the impact on the resident and showed no regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s actions overall represent a serious failing and the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord has done enough to redress the failings for the following reasons:
1. The delay in correctly categorising the issue as a repair the landlord was responsible for.
2. Failure to investigate the cause of the defective paving within a reasonable time.
3. Delay in addressing the repair after accepting responsibility.
4. The distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
5. The persistent lack of communication and responses to the resident’s safety concerns.
6. The landlord’s disregard for the resident’s disability or its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
7. The unsympathetic tone of the landlord’s communication.
The landlord has not demonstrated sufficient learning or reflection in its complaint response or correspondence with this Service and the resident. The landlord repeatedly failed to provide the resident with a good service, and demonstrated a failure to put things right and learn from outcomes. This had a clear detrimental impact on the resident.
Given the seriousness of the failures identified, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the paving. This Service’s remedies guidance shows a starting point of £1000 compensation for stress and inconvenience in severe maladministration cases. Orders have been made to this effect below.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus, failed to recognise the complaint, and took too long.
The landlord’s complaint policy outlines that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. Where it requires more than 10 working days, it will communicate this to the resident. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. Where more time is needed, the landlord will let the resident know why and when a response will be provided.
The resident first complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the paving on 11 June 2021. While the landlord did call the resident the following day, it did not recognise the complaint or treat it as such. The resident asked the landlord to respond to her complaint on several occasions because she wanted to escalate her complaint to this Service.
On 14 February 2023, this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 15 February 2023 and again on 17 February 2023. This is significantly outside of the landlord’s advertised time frame to acknowledge a stage 1 complaint. The landlord provided its complaint response on 17 March 2023, which was 21 months after the complaint was first raised. The landlord’s failure to act without the intervention of this Service is particularly concerning.
The resident requested a stage 2 escalation on 19 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged the request on 21 April 2023. The stage 2 complaint response was provided on 17 May 2023. This is a time frame of 28 days and outside of the landlord’s complaints police response times.
Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a failure of service. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. In these cases, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident to explain in detail the reasons for the delay. The landlord is also expected to provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. However, the landlord did not provide any updates nor reasoning for why it had exceeded the promised timeframe. This response was inappropriate.
The tone of the landlord’s complaint responses was dismissive of the resident’s lived experience. It apologised for the delay in completing the repair but offered little reassurance that the works would be completed or that it was taking the matter seriously. It focused too heavily on the delay in repairs and ignored the impact on the resident, particularly in light of her vulnerabilities.
The resident asked the landlord to reconsider its decision not to offer compensation for distress in its stage 1 response and referred the landlord to this Service’s compensation guidance. The landlord missed the opportunity to review its position in its stage 2 response and reconsider the resident’s experience. That it did not, is a failure.
The landlord offered to reimburse the resident £500 for the artificial grass and decking she had purchased, if the resident could provide evidence of the expense. The resident had informed the landlord she was going to make these purchases prior to doing so if it did not respond within 30 days. Given the amount of time that has passed since the purchase was made, and that the landlord has accepted responsibility for the repair to the paving, an order to reimburse the resident is made below.
The landlord offered £200 compensation for the delay in its complaint responses. This sum is not sufficient to redress the complaint handling failures identified for the following reasons:
1. The failure to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint or her chasing emails for 20 months.
2. The failure to act without the intervention of this Service.
3. The 21 month delay in providing a stage 1 response.
4. The delay in providing a stage 2 response.
5. The failure to take the opportunity to reconsider its stance on compensation for distress and inconvenience in its stage 2 response.
6. The lack of demonstrated learning or reflection in its complaint responses.
7. The failure to be sympathetic or understanding of the resident’s experience.
The complaint handling failures had a detrimental impact on the resident, including having to chase the landlord for a response and reach out to this Service to facilitate the complaint. The resident was evidently distressed by not receiving the complaint responses on time.
The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An award has been made below in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which is available on our website.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the paving.
In accordance with paragraph 52, of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The Chief Executive Officer of the landlord must apologise to the resident, in writing and in person, for the failures noted in this determination. A copy should also be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this determination.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total compensation of £2000. £200 of the landlord’s previous compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £1000 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the paving.
2. £500 in recognition of the complaint handling failures.
3. £500 reimbursement of the resident’s artificial grass and decking.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out an inspection of the resident’s paving and set out its position on any remedial works required. The landlord must write to the resident with the outcome of the inspection and include time scales of when works will be completed. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman, within 6 weeks.
In accordance with part 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out a review of the case and identify what it would do differently to prevent a recurrence. This should include how it will respond to complaints about the performance of its contractors. The landlord should also use this case to consider how it responds to its obligations under the Equality Act. A copy of the outcome of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.