London Borough of Wandsworth (202400022)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202400022 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London Borough of Wandsworth |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
20 April 2026 |
Background
- The resident owned a 1‑bedroom flat under a lease granted by the landlord, which he purchased in 1995. He said that in 2012 the landlord informed him that a store shed on the estate did not form part of his lease. During a lease renegotiation in 2024, he became aware that the shed was in fact included in the lease. He complained that he did not have free access to the shed for 11 and a half years. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered compensation. The resident was dissatisfied with the amount it offered.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the store shed access.
- We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found that:
- The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failings identified in its handling of the store shed access.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- In summary, we have found that:
- The landlord acted reasonably by apologising for the failing it identified. It put matters right by offering proportionate compensation to recognise the evidenced financial loss and the likely distress and inconvenience its failing had caused the resident.
- The landlord unreasonably delayed recording and progressing the resident’s complaint at its local resolution stage.
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 complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 18 May 2026 |
|
|
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 18 May 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £1,300 compensation as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the failing in its handling of the store shed access is made on the basis that this compensation is reoffered to the resident. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
15 January 2024 |
The resident complained about information the landlord gave him in July 2012 stating that the store shed did not form part of his lease. He also said the landlord charged him additional rent for the shed and that he had to find alternative storage. |
|
23 February 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. Although it said it no longer held a record of the advice given in July 2012, it upheld the complaint and offered £1,300 compensation. This included £78 rent charged to the resident for 1 year. |
|
26 February 2024 |
The resident escalated his complaint because he was dissatisfied with the level of compensation the landlord had offered him. He asked the landlord to calculate compensation based on the cost of renting a comparable storage unit with a private company. |
|
21 March 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said the lease and lease plan were available at the point of purchase and clearly showed the areas included. It said the resident was an equal party to the lease and that it was not solely responsible for advising him of its contents. The landlord upheld its previous offer of £1,300 compensation. It said it had not received any evidence of financial detriment but invited the resident to submit any for further consideration. It also set out its learning from the complaint. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred his complaint to us because he was dissatisfied with the level of compensation the landlord had offered. He asked for compensation to be calculated based on either the value of the property or the cost of renting a comparable storage unit for the period during which he did not have access to his shed. He said this would amount to around £15,000 over 11 years. |
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 landlord’s handling of access to the store shed |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The contents of the lease are not in dispute. The landlord confirmed that the store shed was included in the lease when it was originally transferred into the resident’s name in 1995. It is unclear from the records what prompted a discussion about the store shed in July 2012. However, following enquiries with its staff, the landlord confirmed it had incorrectly advised the resident that the store shed was not included in his lease. It rented the store shed to him from August 2012 at a cost of £1.30 per week. The resident chose not to renew this agreement after 1 year. As a result, he did not have access to the store shed, despite it forming part of his lease.
- The landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for its error, which was reasonable. It returned the store shed to the resident and offered him £1,300 compensation for the impact of its failing. This included £78 representing the rent the resident paid for use of the shed between 2012 and 2013. The landlord calculated the remaining £1,222 using 598 weeks at the rental value at the time of the complaint of £1.80 per week, together with a gesture of goodwill to recognise the inconvenience caused. The resident was dissatisfied with this offer and said the use of a potential rental figure was inappropriate, as the landlord should never have charged him for the shed.
- We considered whether the compensation offered put matters right in the circumstances. The landlord’s complaints policy it says that it uses this Service’s guidance when considering compensation. We have therefore assessed whether the overall amount of compensation the landlord offered was fair and reasonable for the impact of the failing, in line with our compensation guidance.
- The landlord’s complaints policy says that where its wrongful action (or inaction) has caused an additional expense it should consider reimbursement. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord reimbursed the resident the £78 rent he paid. As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord also invited the resident to provide evidence of any direct financial losses linked to not having access to the shed, which was also reasonable. While the resident told us he rented alternative storage, he was unable to provide evidence of any costs incurred.
- The resident said that the compensation should reflect the value of the lease, as he was deprived of access to part of it. However, we have not seen evidence of a direct financial loss of this nature. In accordance with our compensation guidance, we would also not award compensation for loss of opportunity or loss of chance in the legal sense, as this would require a finding of breach of contract or negligence, which only the courts can determine.
- Where a landlord’s actions affect a resident’s ability to use parts of their property, as was the case here, we consider compensation for distress and inconvenience. In doing so, we took into account the type of space involved and the length of time the resident did not have free access to it. We also noted that the resident had an opportunity to inspect the contents of the lease and obtain independent legal advice at point of purchase. On this basis, we find that the offer of £1,222 was proportionate to reflect the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s incorrect advice as to the contents of the lease in 2012. As set out in our compensation guidance this exceeds the amounts we would usually award in situations where a failing has adversely affected a resident.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint did not comply with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (March 2022) (the Code). The timescales and complaint definition in the landlord’s current complaint policy comply with the April 2024 Code.
- The landlord did not log the resident’s complaint at stage 1 when it first received it and instead attempted a local resolution. However, it took 22 working days from receipt of the complaint to discuss the resident’s concerns with him, which was an unreasonable delay. It was also not in keeping with its policy of attempting a local resolution within 1 to 2 days and not doing so when a resident makes it clear they wish to raise a formal complaint. The resident’s intention in this case was clear as he submitted his concerns via the landlord’s online complaint form.
- After logging the stage 1 complaint, the landlord issued an acknowledgement after 5 working days, against its policy timescale of 2 working days. However, it issued its stage 1 response within its overall policy timescale. It also acknowledged and responded to the stage 2 complaint in line with its policy.
- The delay in progressing the complaint at the local resolution stage caused an unreasonable delay in responding to the resident’s concerns. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for the likely time and trouble this caused. This is in line with our compensation guidance for situations where there was minor complaint handling failure by the landlord and it did not appropriately acknowledge this.
Learning
- The landlord identified learning from the complaint. It said it would remind staff not to provide advice to leaseholders about the contents of leases and instead signpost them to the lease documents. This was a reasonable step to reduce the risk of incorrect information being given where staff are not required to interpret legal documents.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s record keeping was adequate.
Communication
- Landlords should communicate promptly with residents when responding to complaints and when attempting to resolve matters at an early stage. The current April 2024 Code confirms complaints must be acknowledged, defined and logged at stage 1 of the complains procedure within 5 working says of the complaint being received.