London Borough of Wandsworth (202346831)

Decision
Case ID	202346831
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Wandsworth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	31 October 2025

Background

This complaint is about issues that arose when the landlord offered a new tenancy to the resident. She was unhappy with the condition of the property and raised multiple concerns about safety and repairs needed. The resident is vulnerable and the landlord is aware of her disabilities. She also complained about the location of a disabled parking bay.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Her reports about the condition of the property when it was let.
2. Her request to change the tenancy start date.
3. Her having to travel to allow access.
4. Her request for loft access.
5. Her request to relocate the disabled parking bay.
6. The end of her previous tenancy.
7. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports about the condition of the property when it was let.
2. The resident’s request to change the tenancy start date.
3. The resident’s request for loft access.
4. The end of her previous tenancy.
5. The complaint.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident having to travel to allow access.
2. The resident’s request to relocate the disabled parking bay.

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

Summary of reasons

Condition of property when it was let

The landlord took reasonable and timely action to inspect, repair and respond to the resident’s concerns.

Request to change the tenancy start date

We recognise the resident wanted the start date to be changed to allow time for her to install her flooring. However the landlord was not obliged to change the tenancy start date.

The resident having to travel to allow access

The resident was inconvenienced prior to the start of her tenancy. The landlord should have ensured it allowed access to its operatives to carry out works. However the onus was put on the resident to allow access.

Request for loft access

The landlord considered the resident’s request for loft access in a timely manner and carried out appropriate works to allow her to use this space as storage.

Request to relocate the disabled parking bay

The landlord did not demonstrate it fully considered the resident’s circumstances when she requested relocation of the bay.

The end of her previous tenancy

The landlord correctly notified the resident of her requirements to return the keys for her previous property by midday.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and procedures.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 November 2025
2	The landlord must pay the resident a total of £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This includes: £100 for the inconvenience caused by the resident having to visit the property on multiple occasions to allow access. £100 in recognition of its handling of the resident’s request to relocate the disabled parking bay.	26 November 2025
3	The landlord to inspect the disabled parking bay and consider the resident’s circumstances. It should then write to the resident with the outcome to explain its reasons for the decision.	26 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
January 2024	The resident viewed the property and raised concerns about damaged fencing, pipes left in the lounge and loft access. She was informed the fencing would be fixed after she moved in, the pipes would be removed, and the loft access would likely be restricted for safety reasons. The resident also enquired about having a disabled parking bay near the property. She was informed by the landlord of the application process.
February 2024	On 12 February 2024 the resident raised a complaint about: The condition of the property. Lack of responses from the landlord. Having to travel to the property to allow access on multiple occasions. She was seeking £180 for travel costs. On 14 February 2024 the resident reported 53 concerns. The landlord carried out an inspection on 16 February 2024. It agreed to carry out some internal works before the resident moved into the property. Following the resident’s request to delay the tenancy start date, the landlord agreed to change this from 19 February 2024 to 4 March 2024. The landlord instructed its contractors to install a disabled parking bay near the resident’s property. However a car was parked in the resident’s preferred parking space. Therefore it installed the bay in the available space next to the resident’s preferred space. The resident was unhappy about this. On 21 February 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It found the resident’s concerns were handled correctly and within its standard response times. The landlord agreed to complete some repairs before the resident moved in and said small issues could be fixed afterwards. Its contractors completed the agreed works during February 2024. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. This was for the following issues: Her request to change the tenancy start date. Compensation for financial loss and inconvenience having to travel to the property. The location of the disabled parking bay. Loft access. The termination terms of her previous tenancy. On 28 February 2024 the resident further raised concerns about the contractors tracking mud through the property and tampering with her flooring. She was also unhappy she had to travel to the property without prior notice to allow access to the contractors
18 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint. This explained: The property was deemed ready for occupation, the issues raised did not make it unsafe. It agreed to have minor repairs completed before and after the start of tenancy. The tenancy agreement was adjusted from 19 February 2024 to 4 March 2024. The resident’s request to delay this further to 11 March 2024 was refused. It rejected the resident’s £180 travel costs, due to a lack of evidence. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the contractor’s visits. It found that the disabled bay and loft issues had been addressed appropriately. It found that its officers acted in accordance with its expectation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	We recently spoke to the resident. To resolve the complaint, she is seeking for the landlord to: Change her tenancy start date to 11 March 2024. Pay her compensation for travelling to the property on several occasions before the start of her tenancy. Relocate the parking bay. Have better open communication with her.

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 condition of the property when it was let.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord is responsible for ensuring the property meets a lettable standard. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to ensure the property is kept in good repair.
The landlord carried out works and inspections to the property when it was empty, before the resident moved in.
Following a viewing in January 2024, the resident raised concerns about a broken fence and pipes left on the floor. The landlord told her that the fence would be repaired once she moved in and removed the pipes on 8 February 2024.
The landlord took appropriate steps to address the issues raised before the resident’s tenancy began. It responded reasonably and in a timely manner to the resident’s pre-tenancy concerns.
On 14 February 2024 the resident raised 53 concerns about the safety of the property. It was appropriate the landlord agreed to meet with the resident on 16 February 2024 to discuss her concerns. It followed up with an email that same day, confirming the steps it would take to resolve the issues. The landlord inspected the property and identified minor repairs. Some of the repairs it identified were to tighten the radiator, reseal gutter joint, check front and rear roof tiles, ease and adjust the metal bin shed outside.
The evidence shows the landlord agreed to carry out repairs between 20 and 28 February 2024.
The landlord acted proactively by considering the resident’s concerns and completing some of the repairs before the tenancy began. It completed these works in a timely manner.
The landlord inspected the completed works and confirmed it was satisfied with the condition of the property. It explained that no further work would be undertaken before the resident’s tenancy start date. This is because it found the property to be safe and it met the required standards. It further explained external works would be weather dependent.
The pre-tenancy inspection was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to ensure the property was in a reasonable condition and that agreed repairs had been completed.
While we acknowledge the resident had multiple safety concerns, we have not seen evidence that the property was unsafe.
On 29 February 2024 the landlord confirmed it had inspected its contractors’ images and found void works had been completed to a suitable standard.
Overall we have found the landlord appropriately carried out inspections, agreed to some works and explained its position to the resident.
Repairs are usually raised once a resident is in occupation. It was proactive for the landlord to carry out repairs prior to this. It was also appropriate that it explained its position to the resident regarding raising repairs after the start of her tenancy.
During this period of repairs, the resident left her flooring in the property. On 28 February 2024 she explained this had been tampered with and opened. She also said mud had been tracked around the house by contractors.
On 29 February 2024, the landlord explained an inspection took place on 27 February 2024 and it was satisfied with the condition of the property. This was prior to the resident raising her concerns about its contractors’ conduct. There was a delay of around 3 weeks before the landlord addressed these concerns on 18 March 2024. While there could have been a quicker response from the landlord, we do consider that this short delay not caused a significant impact to 1the resident.

Complaint	The resident’s concerns about the tenancy start date.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident’s tenancy was originally set to begin on 19 February 2024. The landlord agreed to amend the start date to 4 March 2024. This was to allow remedial repairs to be carried out which were identified in the viewing. It was also to allow the resident time to install her flooring.
It was appropriate for the landlord to amend the tenancy start date, considering the need to carry out repairs. This decision was reasonable and proportionate, as it took into account both the resident’s needs and its responsibilities to ensure the property was ready.
The resident requested a further adjustment to 11 March to allow additional time to do her flooring installation. The landlord considered her request and appropriately explained why it could not agree to this extension.
While we acknowledge the resident’s desire for more time to complete her flooring, the tenancy agreement does not require the landlord to extend start dates based on a resident’s request to carry out decoration. Generally such works would be completed when residents move into the property.

Complaint	The resident having to travel to allow access.
Finding	Service failure

The resident had to travel to the property on multiple occasions to provide access for contractors and for inspections. These visits included collecting keys, changing locks, allowing access for repairs and the removal of building materials. The evidence shows on 28 February 2024 she had to travel without prior notice to provide access to the contractors.
We note the landlord’s position that it did not consider it unreasonable for the resident to provide access. It is unclear why the resident was responsible for coordinating works, given that her tenancy was not expected to begin until 4 March 2024.
The lack of coordination and short notice for its contractor’s visit on 28 February 2024 was unreasonable and caused avoidable distress to the resident. Although she had requested the repairs, the tenancy had not yet commenced. We find the burden of facilitating access should not have fallen on the resident. For this reason, we find there was a service failure.
The resident was seeking £180 for financial loss. However the landlord stated it had not seen evidence to show this cost was incurred. It is reasonable for the landlord to want evidence of costs incurred before considering reimbursement. In this case we have not seen evidence to support this was provided to the landlord.
In line with our remedies guidance, we have made an order for the landlord to compensate the resident £100. This is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	Request for loft access.
Finding	No maladministration

In January 2024 the resident asked about loft access during her initial viewing. The landlord advised it was unlikely she would be granted access for health and safety reasons. On 3 February 2024 the resident sought clarification on this matter.
On 16 February 2024 the landlord appropriately explained the process for requesting loft access. The landlord’s actions were reasonable. It acted in line with the tenancy agreement. This states that lofts can only be used for storage with written permission from the landlord.
The resident made a formal written request on 19 February 2024. The landlord promptly considered the request and confirmed that works to insulate and board the loft were required before access could be granted. As a gesture of goodwill it completed these works, so she could use this space safely for storage.
The landlord was not required to approve access under the tenancy agreement but chose to do so to support the resident’s request. This was a positive approach and demonstrated its flexibility when taking the resident’s needs into consideration.

Complaint	Request to relocate the disabled parking bay.
Finding	Service failure

Under the Equality Act 2010, landlords must make reasonable adjustments if a disabled resident is disadvantaged. This can include providing or modifying parking bays.
Following the resident’s request for a parking bay the landlord took appropriate steps to support its installation. However once installed, the resident disputed its location. She wanted the parking bay to be placed next to the space where the contractors had originally placed it. She explained that its current location meant she would have to walk around a car if it was parked next to her. She said she needed direct access to car.
The landlord stated on the day the contractor attended to carry out the work, a car was parked in the preferred space. Therefore, the bay immediately next to it was marked for disabled use. The landlord explained this was in line with the medical recommendation that the resident should have access to a disabled bay nearby. It did not consider there was a sufficient reason to relocate the bay, further stating it was approximately 10 metres from her property.
The landlord acted reasonably by installing the disabled bay in line with the medical recommendations. However it did not demonstrate that it fully investigated the resident’s concerns about the bay’s location and the impact this had on her access needs.
We spoke to the resident, who explained the difficulty of accessing her car with her medical aid, particularly when another car is parked next to it. She said it was “impossible” to get out of the car when she requires assistance from a friend. Her friend therefore must help her out of the car first and then park the car separately.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have tried to better understand what she meant by her request to relocate the bay and why. It could also to have assessed how the current location affected her ability to access her car.
We have found there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to relocate the bay. We have considered the landlord’s compensation policy and have made an order for it to pay the resident £100. This is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	End of her previous tenancy.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord stated that it had informed the resident of the requirement to return her keys by midday. However the resident said this requirement was not clearly communicated before the termination. The landlord said the resident was informed in person about the requirements.
There is no available record of the conversation which took place between the resident and the landlord. However we have reviewed the Notice to End Tenancy document, which was signed by the resident on 2 February 2024. This says that the keys must be returned before midday on Monday.
The document shows that the scheduled date of 19 February 2024 had been amended to 11 March 2024. It is unclear who amended this as there is no evidence to show the landlord had agreed to this date and the resident states, she had not amended this. As started above the evidence show it had agreed to delay the new tenancy until 4 March 2024.
Overall we are satisfied the landlord made the resident aware of the need to return the keys by midday.
The resident moved into the new property on 11 March 2024, which resulted in a delay in retuning the keys.
The landlord stated that a fee is usually incurred when keys are returned late. Despite the resident’s delays in returning the keys, the landlord decided to waive the fees incurred for the delay. This demonstrated recognition of the resident’s circumstances and its attempts to resolve the matter without financially impacting the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 2 working days. Its complaints policy says it will provide residents a response within 20 working days from the acknowledgement date.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged both complaints within the expected timescales. It also provided its formal responses within the timescales set out in its policy. We are satisfied the landlord appropriately acknowledged and responded to both complaints within a timely manner. Therefore we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

There are no concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping and communication in this case.