London Borough of Wandsworth (202419149)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419149

Wandsworth Council

24 June 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about leaks into her property.
   2. Complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The landlord is the freeholder and a local authority. The property is a 3rd floor flat. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
3. The records provided to this service by the parties show that the resident raised concerns about leaks into the property in 2021. Around this time, the landlord completed inspections and subsequently completed works to add a protective water sealant to the external brickwork. As part of the works, the landlord advised that it considered the issue to be in part due to excessive condensation within the property. It noted that internal works were the responsibility of the resident and gave advice on completing an internal inspection. It also suggested that a PIV unit may assist with condensation.
4. In or around October 2023, the resident made further reports of water ingress into her property. She advised that her walls became damp every time it rained and provided photographs to support this. She chased updates on 16 November 2023, following which the landlord advised it was installing scaffolding to inspect the external walls.
5. The resident chased the landlord again in January 2024 and the landlord advised that scaffolding had been delayed due to poor weather. She had to chase again in February 2024, following which the scaffolding was erected on 10 February 2024.
6. After chasing again on 18 March 2024, the landlord advised it would check all the pointing on the brickwork. It advised, however, that the wall needed to be dry for any works to take place, so this would be delayed until the weather cleared.
7. The resident chased updates in April 2024, and on 1 May 2024, the landlord confirmed that works to the brickwork and the mastic around the windows had been completed. The resident disputed this, and the landlord later confirmed this information was incorrect.
8. On 18 May 2024, the resident requested a formal complaint about the ongoing delays. The landlord provided a response on 3 June 2024; however, this response was not a formal response under its complaints process. It advised that the ongoing poor weather and access issues caused by neighbours had delayed the works. It confirmed works had now been booked for 6 June 2024. The resident subsequently confirmed she still wanted a stage 1 response, and so the landlord confirmed it would now log a formal complaint.
9. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 June 2024, which included the following:
   1. It reiterated the delays were due to poor weather and access issues and so were beyond its control; however, it acknowledged it had not provided sufficient updates.
   2. It advised it considered the works to have been completed in June 2024. It acknowledged that the repointing works were not neat but advised they should be effective.
   3. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns, it advised it would arrange for an external surveyor to inspect the wall. It did not provide a timeframe for this.
   4. It reiterated its position that the resident should arrange an internal condensation inspection.
10. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint on 23 June 2024. The external surveyor inspected the property on 16 July 2024.
11. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 July 2024, which contained the following:
    1. Following concerns about the abilities of its repairs team, it noted the level of experience the team had and its position that they were qualified to inspect the property.
    2. It reiterated its acknowledgement that it had not communicated about the delays to works effectively.
    3. It confirmed it would provide a copy of the external surveyor’s report and that it would undertake any works identified.
    4. It reiterated the need for an internal condensation inspection, which it confirmed it would pay for.
12. The landlord provided a copy of the external surveyor’s report on 5 August 2024. It also raised works to the bay window roof and brickwork.
13. It is evident that some works were completed on 19 August 2024; however, the resident chased updates several times in August and September 2024 about the remaining works without a reply.
14. On 11 September 2024, the landlord confirmed works had been completed. The resident subsequently expressed dissatisfaction that only patch works had been completed, rather than a more comprehensive repointing. The landlord gave its position that the works would be effective.
15. In November 2024, the resident also noted that holes left in the walls following the removal of redundant pipes were continuing to allow water ingress. The holes were subsequently sealed in December 2024. The resident has advised this service that as of June 2025, the issues have not returned.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

16. It is not disputed that the resident raised concerns about leaks in or around 2015 and 2021. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a resident to raise a formal complaint about matters within a reasonable period of these occurring, usually considered to be 12 months. This is so the landlord has an opportunity to investigate the matters while they are still live and while relevant records are still readily available. It is not evident that the resident raised a formal complaint about these earlier matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As such, this investigation has focused on the events following the resident’s reports in October 2023.

Leaks

17. It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for the external structure of the building and the resident, as a leaseholder, is responsible for any internal works required.
18. The landlord’s repair policy notes 2 timeframes for ‘non-urgent’ repairs. It will address minor leaks within 20 working days and planned repairs, such as surface renewal, within 60 working days.
19. The resident reported water ingress into her property in October 2023 and provided photographic evidence. Having been made aware of this, it would be reasonable for the landlord to carry out an inspection to determine the cause and its repair responsibility. However, it is not evident that the landlord raised any works until the resident had to chase it again on 16 November 2023. At this time, the landlord explained it had to install scaffolding to complete the inspection. While this may cause reasonable delays, the landlord failed to communicate its intention to the resident causing her to have to expend time and trouble.
20. The Ombudsman understands that some delays can be reasonable where matters are beyond the landlord’s control. It is evident that poor weather over the winter months impacted the safety of installing scaffolding. It is also evident that access to the ground floor flat had added to the delays. In such circumstances, the landlord should keep the resident informed of the delays and the new anticipated timeframes for the works. It is not evident that the landlord did this. This led the resident to have to chase updates on 2 further occasions.
21. Additionally, where there is evidence of an active leak, but a delay to repairs, the landlord should consider if any mitigating interim steps could be completed. These could include dehumidifiers in the property. It is not evident that the landlord did this, nor did it seek to understand the impact the issues were having on the resident. This was a missed opportunity to ensure it was doing everything it could to resolve the issues she was experiencing.
22. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for landlords to keep detailed and effective records to help it monitor repairs and demonstrate to resident’s and ultimately to the Ombudsman that it has acted appropriately. In this case, however, following further chases from the resident, the landlord incorrectly informed her that all works had been completed. Despite its policy requiring it to post inspect any works, which should have been the trigger to realise works hadn’t even been carried out, the landlord only identified this issue when pointed out by the resident. This would have caused considerable frustration for the resident and demonstrated ineffective record keeping.
23. In its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that its communication had been poor. Additionally, despite considering that the works completed should be effective, it arranged for an external surveyor to assess the property. This was appropriate and demonstrated it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. In its stage 2 response, it also appropriately sought to reassure the resident about the experience of its team and agreed to share the external surveyor’s report. These were further examples of it seeking to be open and transparent to rebuild trust with the resident.
24. Throughout the parties’ correspondence, the landlord reiterated concerns that condensation had been noted within the property. It did not assert that this was the overall cause of the issues and continued to carry out investigations and repairs to the external walls of the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to alert the resident to this concern. It was also reasonable to suggest an inspection, which it appropriately used its discretion to offer to pay for. As part of its advice, the landlord noted that a PIV unit is useful in managing condensation. It is not evident it asserted this would solve the issues the resident was experiencing, and it was reasonable that it declined to reimburse the resident for this as internal works were not its responsibility.
25. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, despite having recognised its poor communication, it failed to demonstrate any learning. Its communication regarding the further works continued to be poor, which led the resident have to expend further time and trouble chasing updates. Additionally, having completed the works it had committed to, it is not evident that it arranged any follow up inspections, despite the resident’s concerns that the works may not be effective. This was a further missed opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to resolving the issues, in line with its policy.
26. In summary, while some of the landlord’s service delivery was initially reasonably delayed by matters like weather and access, it repeatedly failed to provide meaningful updates. Where it did, the information was incorrect, demonstrating poor record keeping. These failings caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. As such, a finding of maladministration has been made.
27. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. While the landlord provided some relevant advice, and appropriately committed to further inspections, it failed to learn from its earlier poor communication. Additionally, despite having identified poor communication in both its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord failed to offer any compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused. As such, an order for £500 compensation has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount is in line with this service’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been an adverse impact on the resident and where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but its attempts were not proportionate to the failings identified.

Complaints handling

28. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation.
29. The resident requested for a formal complaint to be raised on 18 May 2024. However, this was not acknowledged as a formal complaint by the landlord. It nevertheless understood that a complaint had been raised and provided an informal response on 3 June 2024. While this was within 10 working days of her complaint, the response was not a formal response under its complaints policy. The response also did not provide information about how to escalate the complaint, as required by this service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). Subsequently, the resident had to expend time and trouble chasing a formal response.
30. The landlord provided this further response (now referred to as a stage 1 response) on 20 June 2024. This was 13 working days after her further request for a formal response and 22 working days after her initial complaint. These response times were not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code, which would have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.
31. Should the landlord have experienced delays with its complaint investigation, it could have requested additional time prior to the expiry of the complaint deadlines. It failed to do this, however.
32. After the resident’s request that her complaint be escalated on 23 June 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 July 2024. This was 19 working days after her request and was reasonable in the circumstances.
33. In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy or the Code by issuing an informal complaint response and failing to provide the stage 1 response within the correct timeframes. This amounted to maladministration in the circumstances, for which £100 has been ordered to reflect the impact on the resident. This amount is in line with this service’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident but where there has been no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about leaks into her property.
    2. Complaints handling.

Orders

35. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £700, comprising:
    1. £600 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings in relation to the leaks in the property.
    2. £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.
36. This amount must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.