London Borough of Wandsworth (202337234)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337234

London Borough of Wandsworth

29 September 2025

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. the condition of the property after she moved in.
2. the collapse of her living room ceiling.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority since July 2023. The property is a 3-bedroom house with a garden. The resident lives with her partner and children. The landlord is aware that the household has vulnerabilities.
On 22 July 2023, after having moved in, the resident reported several issues at the property. The landlord raised repairs in response. On 7 October 2023 the resident told the landlord that her living room ceiling had fallen through, causing minor injury to the household. The landlord attended on this date. On 9 October 2023 the resident sent the landlord a list of problems she had faced at the property since her tenancy started.
On 15 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint. She said:
1. the property was not fit for purpose when she moved in.
2. 95% of the garden was covered in broken glass, nails and small building materials. It was unsafe for her children.
3. she had had to call out the UK Power Network in response to buzzing and electricity dropping at her property. They found dangerously fitted wiring which had caused sparks in the cellar. She said this could have been life threatening and she was without electricity for hours.
4. her living room ceiling had collapsed causing minor injury to her household. Her furniture was damaged, and the room was unusable during the repair process. She said the repairs were messy and the contractors identified the cause as ‘poor workmanship’.
5. she wanted compensation for the damaged items and emotional distress, and for the landlord to ensure the house was safe.
Following telephone calls and inspection agreements, the resident agreed for the landlord to treat the complaint as a service request on 20 October 2023. She re-raised the complaint on 23 October 2023 and on 3 October (which may have been a typographical error) the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It partially upheld the complaint and said:
1. it had removed a bath and large pieces of glass from her garden on 10 October 2023. It would attend on 4 November 2023 to remove smaller fragments, but it could not guarantee to remove trace of all tiny fragments.
2. a new fuse box had already been fitted. However, it had booked a new electrical test on 7 November 2023 and would provide her with a copy of the certificate.
3. there was no suggestion that the works carried out to the ceiling were not of a good standard and the ceiling did not appear to suffer from water ingress. It was an accident. The cause could not be attributed to one single factor. It had since completed ceiling works and provided the resident with its insurance details should she wish to make a claim. It had tested all the other ceilings in her property, and they were safe.
4. it had raised or completed repairs for several other issues the resident had reported including toilet and bath drainage issues, loose or missing door handles and locks, loose window casing and a weak staircase.
5. it had changed its process to tap test all the ceilings before letting a property.
On 24 November 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. she wanted to know what work was done to the house during the void period and details of who signed off on its safety. She had heard there was a fire, she wanted to know which room was affected and whether squatters had lived there.
2. several faults and repairs needed doing when she moved in that should have been completed beforehand.
3. 3 people could have died, and someone needed to take responsibility.
On 19 December 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It:
1. provided information about the location of the fire, the contractor used, the history of the house and the dates it was empty.
2. confirmed that it had obtained safety certificates including electrical certificates before she moved in.
3. appreciated that not knowing the cause of the ceiling collapse must be unsettling, but there was no evidence to suggest it was caused by negligence by the landlord.
4. said the garden had a significant amount of broken glass and building materials in it. It had since cleared those items. As a gesture of good will it offered her £200 compensation.
In September 2025 the resident told this Service that the garden was unusable for a long period of time after the internal complaints procedure, but the landlord had since addressed it. She said that the landlord’s insurers had recently paid her approximately £1,800 to replace the sofas in her living room. She said that there were no outstanding actions required in relation to her complaint. She wanted this Service to investigate to identify any failures made by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when she moved in

The landlord’s void procedure states that it will:
1. ensure that any property let has a valid energy performance certificate.
2. ensure that plaster ceilings are checked when void works are being undertaken to Edwardian/Victorian properties to make sure that they are secure and in a good state of repair.
3. carry out a site meeting with a contractor to confirm works required e.g. rubbish clearance, lock change and health and safety checks. After works are completed, it says it will inspect repairs.
The landlord’s repairs procedure states that it is responsible for repairs to fixtures and fittings, drains, basins, sinks, baths and toilets. It says some repairs will be covered by insurance, for example, accidental damage, fires or storms and flooding. The procedure from 2023 does not specify repair target times. It states that when a resident reports a repair, it will confirm what action will be taken the number of working days in which the contractor will be required to complete the repair.
The landlord addressed 3 issues in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her property. For ease of reference, we have referred to each issue separately below.

Garden clearance

The resident contacted the landlord on 22 July 2023 advising that she needed a skip for rubble and debris that had been left in the garden. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this request, which was unreasonable and non-compliant with its repairs policy.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 and 15 October 2023. She said it had removed a bath which had been left in the garden, but it had left glass and debris. On 19 October 2023 the landlord said it was seeking a quote to remove small fragments of glass. It did not provide the resident with the number of working days in which it would be required to complete the repair, which was a failing when assessed against its repairs policy.
In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord said its contractor had left a voicemail with the resident as it could attend on 4 November 2023 to remove the smaller fragments of glass. It said it could not guarantee the removal of all fragments. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide an appointment slot and contact details of the operative to try to put the matter right for the resident.
The contractor attended on 6 December 2023. The records state that the operatives cut back the garden, bagged up the rubbish and picked up the glass. It’s unclear from the records whether the delay was due to the contractor rescheduling or the resident’s availability. The lack of appointment records has prevented this Service from being able to assess the reasonability of the landlord’s actions.
In the stage 2 response the landlord apologised that it did not clear the garden during or very shortly after the void period. It offered the resident £200 for the loss of use of her garden. It was reasonable that the landlord apologised for its failings and attempted to put things right for the resident.
However, the resident continued to express concerns about dangerous glass fragments in her garden. It was not until September 2024, when the landlord re-surfaced the garden and laid down new turf, that it made the garden usable and put the issue right. It took over a year from the resident reporting the issue. The resident also had to continually report the disrepair. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will inspect completed repairs. That the issue continued for months after the internal complaints procedure suggests it did not ensure the repair was effective the first time. This was not reasonable.

Electrical issues

Sometime between July and October 2023 the resident called UK Power Networks in response to buzzing and electricity cutting out at her property. It is unclear from the records whether she raised this with the landlord at the time, or whether it was the landlord or the power network who re-fit her fuse-box to address the issue. The unclear records in relation to the electrical fault has prevented us from being able to assess the landlord’s actions at the time of the event. This was a record keeping failure.
As part of the complaint the resident said that the unsafe wiring could have caused a fire at the property. She said the landlord acted negligently by renting it to her. The records show that in March 2023, before it let the property, the landlord obtained an electrical performance certificate with a 10-year validity period. It was appropriate that the landlord adhered to its void procedure and legal obligations by obtaining the relevant certification. The landlord was entitled to rely on the certification of a qualified electrician in deciding to let the property.
In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord said the fuse-box had already been replaced. To reassure the resident, it said it had ordered an electrician to undertake a new safety test on 7 November 2023 and would provide her with a new certificate by 15 November 2023. This was completed on 14 November 2023. The landlord acted reasonably by ensuring the electrical safety of the property and communicating this to the resident as agreed.

Various repairs

Between July and October 2023, the resident reported several other repairs at the property including:
1. drainage issues and loose fittings in the toilet and bath, and issues with the placement of the washing machine.
2. an uncovered gas meter.
3. issues with internal door handles, a broken basement lock and loose window casing.
4. a weak staircase in the basement and a hole in the external rendering.
In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord:
1. said it had addressed repairs to the bathroom, the washing machine placement and the gas meter. This Service has reviewed the repair records and found that the landlord acted within the target dates it provided for each repair reported, which was reasonable.
2. agreed to put right the door handles, basement and window by 16 November 2023. The records show the repair was completed by this date, which was appropriate.
3. said it had inspected the rendering and staircase and would complete repairs by 10 November 2023. The landlord provided a works order number but there is no further record of this works order within its records. This Service is unable to ascertain when the repairs were completed. The resident has confirmed that no repairs are outstanding, so the landlord has put the matter right. However, the poor record keeping has prevented us from thoroughly assessing the landlord’s actions. This was a failing.

Conclusion

Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when she moved in. This is because:
1. it took the landlord over a year from the resident’s initial report, and a significantly long period after the internal complaints procedure to clear the garden.
2. its records of appointments with the resident were poor, preventing this Service from assessing whether its responses were fair and reasonable.
The resident told this Service that the garden was a serious hazard for months and she was constantly worried about the safety of her children. She said she had to spend time reporting and chasing repairs.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. The landlord can deduct the £200 already offered if it can evidence that it has paid this. This is in line with the level of redress outlined in our remedies guidance in cases where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the collapse of her living room ceiling

On 7 October 2023the resident told the landlord her living room ceiling had collapsed late in the evening, causing minor injury to her children and babysitter. The landlord’s out of hours team attended within 24 hours to inspect the ceiling. It found no concerns with the rest of the property but offered the resident emergency accommodation, which she refused. They agreed the children were old enough to know not to go inside the room where it was unsafe. This was an appropriate and timely response.
On 9 October 2023, after the weekend, the landlord attended again and raised a works order to make the ceiling safe and identify necessary repairs. This was a reasonable response in line with the repairs policy. However, it set the target date for this order as 18 October 2023 and closed it on as completed on 24 October 2023. Though there is evidence of communication between the landlord and the resident during this period, there is no evidence the landlord explained the reason for this delay to the resident, which was unreasonable.
In the stage 1 complaint on 15 October 2023 the resident said all her furniture was broken and the living room would be unusable for weeks due to the repair and redecoration works. She said the landlord had failed to drop off a dehumidifier as agreed. She said her family could have been killed due to the landlord’s negligence and that it had caused mental distress for the household.
The landlord contacted the resident the following day to discuss the issues and arrange a further inspection, which was reasonable. It is clear from the correspondence that an inspection took place sometime between 16 and 19 October 2023. There is no clear inspection paperwork within the landlord’s records, which was a record keeping oversight.
In both complaint responses, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had completed repairs to the living room, ensured all the other ceilings were safe and that in future it would ensure to test all ceilings as part of its void procedure. This response was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and to learn from outcomes.
The repair records show that the landlord raised an order on 18 October 2023 to drop off dehumidifiers. It set the target date as 10 November 2023 but did not complete the task until 22 November 2023. This delay, which likely delayed the overall repair time for the resident, was never acknowledged by the landlord. This was a failure in service.
The landlord’s void procedure states that it will ensure that plaster ceilings in Victorian properties are secure and in a good state of repair. In correspondence with this Service the landlord confirmed the property was very likely Victorian due to its age and style. The repair records during the void period between 2020 and 2023 show no evidence of checks to any internal ceilings’ security or state of repair. In the stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that the void works to the ceilings only included filling and painting, unless other works were warranted. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have evidenced that it checked the security and state of the ceilings in the property before it signed off on void works. That it did not do this was a failing when assessed against its own void procedure.
As the landlord has been unable to identify the cause of the ceiling collapse, we cannot know for certain what caused the collapse. The landlord provided the resident with details of its insurers so she could make a claim. The landlord’s position in providing its insurance details was reasonable.
In her escalation the resident requested information relating to the property’s repair and occupation history. In the stage 2 response the landlord provided her with the information requested, which was reasonable.
The landlord raised orders to redecorate and clear the living room in November 2023 and completed the repairs within the target dates set, which was appropriate.
Overall, we have found maladministration the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the collapse of her ceiling because:
1. it delayed in completing aspects of the repair and failed to communicate this to the resident.
2. its record keeping was poor.
The resident said the issue had caused her household mental distress. She said the dust and the time taken to complete the redecoration works made her uncomfortable and inconvenienced her family.
Although the landlord has taken steps to improve the relationship with the resident, it has not acknowledged all of its failings. With consideration of our remedies guidance we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified. We have also ordered the landlord to share the findings of this investigation with its void team, specifically with reference to its procedure to check ceilings for older properties.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy in place in 2023 says:
1. it will try to resolve any complaint straight away without it escalating to a formal complaint. In doing this it must tell the customer what they can expect and give them time limits for actions.
2. if it could not resolve the problem or if the customer wished to complain it would be dealt with at stage 1. It would acknowledge a complaint within 2 days and issue a response within 20 working days. If there was an unavoidable delay, it would inform the customer of when they would receive a reply.
3. at stage 2 the timescale for acknowledgement was 2 working days and, for response, 25 working days.
The policy was not compliant with the Code, which says that a landlord will respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s policy has since changed and is now compliant with the Code.
On 9 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord with a list of things that had gone wrong at the property. She said she wanted to take her complaint to the “highest level of complaints.” Given that the resident clearly wanted to raise a complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have either raised a complaint or clarified, at this stage, that she was happy for it to be treated as a service request. Instead, the landlord automatically treated it as a service request, this was obstructive.
On 15 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint through the landlord’s formal complaint form. The landlord spoke to the resident on 16 and 19 October 2023, it outlined repairs and timescales. It asked her if she was happy for it to be de-escalated to a service request. Though the resident initially agreed, this was the second time the resident had raised a complaint. That it did not open a complaint investigation is evidence the landlord operated an unfair and hard to access complaints process. This inconvenienced the resident, which cost her further time and trouble in resolving her complaint.
On 23 October 2023 the resident asked for the landlord to treat her complaint as such. The landlord acknowledged this 3 working days later, 1 day outside its policy. This was a minor delay with likely little impact. It issued its stage 1 response on 3 November 2023 which was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
On 24 November 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. Again, the landlord acknowledged this 1 day outside its policy. It agreed to issue a response by 21 December 2023 but wrote to the resident on this date requesting an extension to 12 January 2024 due to the need for further approvals. It issued its response on 19 January 2024, a week later. It did not provide a reason for this further delay, which was unreasonable, but it did acknowledge the delay in its final response.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling for the reasons outlined above. This is because the failings adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when she moved in.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the collapse of her ceiling
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. provide an apology for the errors identified in this report.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £700 broken down as follows:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her property when she moved in.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the collapse of the living room ceiling.
  3. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. the landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident. It can deduct the £200 previously offered in its complaint responses from the total compensation if it can evidence it has already paid this.
The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days.