Wandle Housing Association Limited (202009248)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009248

Wandle Housing Association Limited

30 March 2023

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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Requests for repairs to her kitchen cabinet lights.
2. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom flat, from July 2014. The landlord is a housing association.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the installations it has provided for supplying electricity. The tenancy agreement says that residents are responsible for minor repairs including replacing light bulbs. This means that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the kitchen cabinet light fittings but the resident is responsible for changing light bulbs.
The landlord’s repair policy says that it will respond to most non-emergency responsive repairs within 28 days unless it is unable to agree an appointment with the resident in this timescale. It says it will respond within seven days to repairs which it considers to be urgent.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process which says it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. It says that stage two complaints will be investigated and responded to by a senior staff member from the relevant service. The landlord’s complaint policy allows for compensation to be given when there has been a service failure.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown came into effect from 5 November 2020. Restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, but there was a third national lockdown from 6 January 2021. Although schools re-opened on 8 March 2021, the “stay at home” order remained in place until 29 March 2021. On 19 July 2021 most legal limits on social contact were removed in England and the final closed sectors of the economy reopened. During lockdown the landlord operated an essential repair service only inside properties.

Summary of events

The evidence seen shows that the landlord raised orders for the light fittings under the kitchen cabinets to be replaced on 10 June 2015 and 14 October 2015, though it is not clear whether the fittings were faulty. The landlord raised further orders for the cabinet lights to be repaired on 26 June 2017, 28 August 2018 and 14 September 2018, the orders say the lights were faulty. It is not clear from the evidence what work was done under each order but it is clear that the halogen light fittings were replaced with LED fittings at some point between 10 June 2015 and 14 September 2018.
The resident made a complaint on 2 October 2019 saying that she had not been able to source a bulb for a kitchen cabinet light and wanted the landlord to replace the bulb as it had provided the fitting. The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 31 October 2019 saying that the resident was responsible for changing lightbulbs, including those to the kitchen cabinets, and that it would not change the bulb.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 February 2020. Her letter refers to the landlord sending a copy of its stage one complaint response as she had not received it previously. The resident said that the lack of detail in the response caused her to feel that her complaint had not been fully investigated and she gave a summary of issues with the light fittings since she had moved in. She said that:
1. She had reported issues with the cabinet lights multiple times since moving in and that, during the two-year defect period, neither the landlord nor the developer accepted responsibility.
2. The landlord had agreed to replace a fitting but could not source a like-for-like replacement. The landlord had then offered to replace all five of the halogen fittings with LED ones and said that it would replace the bulbs in future. She had not trusted this and was concerned about the cost of replacement bulbs so had refused the work at the time and asked for replacement halogen fittings.
3. She had chased the repair many times over a prolonged period and the landlord had kept offering to fit LED lights. In the end she had agreed to have one fitting changed for an LED one on the understanding that the landlord would replace the bulb when needed.
4. About two years later she had reported that the LED bulb needed replacing and had been told that it was her responsibility. She felt that the background had not been investigated before the landlord had responded to her complaint.
5. She asked for the LED fitting to be replaced with a halogen one.
The landlord provided its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 17 June 2020. It reiterated that replacing the kitchen cabinet light bulb fell outside of its repairing obligations, said that it felt its stage one response had adequately addressed her complaint, and that it did not uphold her complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 19 October 2020 saying this was her second complaint. She reiterated the points made in her previous letter and added that:
1. Since receiving the complaint response, she had asked for the fitting to be replaced with a halogen one and thought this had been agreed. She had subsequently been told the request was on hold due to the covid-19 pandemic.
2. She had called again when restrictions were lifted and was told that the fittings had been ordered. However, she had chased again after a few weeks and was told there was nothing on the system.
3. She requested transcripts of the telephone calls she had made reporting the lights and for her complaint to be investigated “properly”.
On 23 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord saying she thought it must not have received her letter and attaching a copy. On the same day, the resident contacted this Service saying that she had been complaining to the landlord about a repair “for months” and attaching a copy of her letter to the landlord of 19 October 2020.
The landlord responded to the resident on 25 November 2020 saying it had responded to her complaint at both stages of its process and signposting her to this Service if she remained dissatisfied. The landlord also said that it was dealing with her request for call recordings but noted that calls were deleted automatically after 90 days.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 19 December 2020 asking it to contact the resident regarding her complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident’s request for her call records on 21 December 2020. It said that it only stored call records for 100 days and had not found any calls from her number regarding the light issue but, to assist her further, it attached a record of notes from its housing management system and records from its repairs management system.
Evidence seen shows that on 19 January 2021, the landlord noted that the resident had a complaint about not being able to replace a bulb in their kitchen cabinet fitting. It said that the resident felt that the landlord should replace the bulb as they had provided the fitting. The note says that guidance was to be checked and confirmation given to the resident but no evidence has been seen that this was done.
On 21 January 2021, the landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord advising that the light fittings had been ordered and an appointment would be arranged when they were received. Earlier emails suggested that the contractor had not been able to source halogen fittings and that the only option was replacement LED fittings. It is not clear from the evidence which type of fittings the contractor had ordered and there is no evidence that the landlord sought to clarify this at the time.
The landlord raised an order with the contractor to replace blown bulbs in the under cabinet lighting on 28 January 2021. The order noted that the work was a goodwill gesture and would not be maintained by the landlord in future. The order was marked as completed on 29 January 2021. Another order was raised by the landlord to “change” the kitchen cabinet lighting on 29 March 2021 and marked as complete on 26 April 2021.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 30 June 2021 saying that:
1. The contractor had arranged an appointment for 29 January 2021 but no work was done as the contractor had not been able to source a halogen fitting. She had found one online, given details to the contractor and updated the landlord. The landlord had subsequently given approval for five fittings to be replaced with halogen ones and it had been agreed that she would be responsible for maintaining them afterwards.
2. She had chased several times but the landlord had not contacted her until 26 March 2021 when it said the contractor would arrange another appointment. The contractor had subsequently arranged an appointment but again attended without any light fittings. The contractor had returned with the fittings later the same day but they were LED ones.
3. Weeks had since passed and she had contacted the landlord multiple times during which the contractor had told her that the order had been cancelled by the landlord.
4. The difficulties in resolving the repair and lack of contact from the landlord were stressful.
5. She said that the landlord had not responded to her complaint in writing and asked the Ombudsman to assist her in resolving it.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 27 July 2021 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 4 August 2021. The resident subsequently contacted us on 17 August 2021 saying that she had not received a response and the Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) to the landlord on 27 August 2021 for failing to evidence that it had responded to the resident’s complaint.
On 13 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident saying that the contractor had advised it that she had refused the installation of the lights until the landlord confirmed it would maintain the replacement fittings. It said that the installation fell outside of its repairs remit and had been agreed to resolve the resident’s complaint. The landlord said that when the repair was authorised it had explained that it would not maintain the fittings as they were non-standard. It said that it could remove the cabinet lights altogether or replace the faulty bulbs with LED fittings which it would maintain, but if the resident wanted halogen lights, she would be responsible for any repairs to them in the future. The landlord asked the resident to confirm how she wished to proceed.
The resident contacted this Service again on 21 September 2021 saying she would contact her landlord again to ask it to respond to her complaint. The resident emailed the landlord the following day setting out the background of her complaint, asking for halogen lights to be fitted and for a response to her complaint.
The landlord provided its second stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 8 October 2021. It said that:
1. It apologised for not being able to resolve the complaint at stage one.
2. Following an enquiry from the Ombudsman, it had agreed to replace five faulty bulbs with halogen light fittings as a one-off repair and that she would be responsible for maintaining the bulbs and fittings in future. The resident would also be responsible for replacing the fittings should they become faulty as they were non-standard and not part of the landlord’s repairs policy remit.
3. The contractor had not understood the instructions given by the landlord which had contributed to the delay in work being done. It had clarified the instruction on 7 October 2021 and the contractor would arrange an appointment.
4. It offered £250 compensation for its failures in addressing and resolving the complaint including the delay with the repair.
The resident replied on 12 October 2021 confirming her agreement to having five halogen lights fitted and accepting the compensation offer. The landlord subsequently advised that the work was completed on 7 December 2021.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.

Handling of requests for repairs to kitchen cabinet lights

The evidence shows that the landlord had raised five orders to attend to the cabinet lights between 10 June 2015 and 14 September 2018 and that, in at least three instances, this was because the lights were faulty. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s understanding that the landlord would replace the bulbs after the halogen fittings were changed for LED ones but has seen no evidence of this agreement.
From the evidence seen, the resident was consistent in her presentation of the issue; that a bulb needed replacing. However, the landlord was not consistent as its records and correspondence sometimes referred to the issue being the bulbs and other times being the fittings. The communication between the landlord and its contractor was similarly unclear. As noted in paragraph 17, the landlord did not clarify whether the contractor had ordered halogen or LED light fittings in January 2021. A further example is the landlord’s instruction to “change” the cabinet lighting on 29 March 2021 where it is not clear whether this means changing the bulb or the fitting. The lack of clarity caused confusion and delayed the work being done as the wrong fittings were ordered on several occasions.
Despite its previous complaint correspondence, the evidence suggests that the landlord was still considering the resident’s request in January 2021 and that, by 21 January 2021, it was instructing its contractor to source replacements. Whilst it is not entirely clear what led to the landlord’s change in position, the evidence suggests it may have resulted from the Ombudsman’s contact on 19 December 2020. Regardless of the reason, it was reasonable that the landlord ultimately decided to replace the bulbs, given that it had no obligation to do so, and reasonable that it clarified that the resident would be responsible for future bulb replacement.
However, the landlord subsequently agreed to replace all five LED fittings for halogen ones later in January 2021 and decided that the resident would be responsible for their future maintenance. The landlord has obligations to maintain installations that it provides and it is inevitable that some models may become obsolete over time resulting in the landlord being unable to maintain them, and having to replace them instead. Therefore, it was not appropriate that the landlord advised the resident that she would be responsible for maintaining halogen fittings, if installed, as they were “non-standard”.
It took the landlord over two years from the resident’s complaint of 2 October 2019 to replace the fittings. Whilst some delays arising from covid-19 restrictions and gaps in contact from the resident are mitigating factors, the landlord is responsible for the delays caused by its handling of the issue prior to covid and further delays from January 2021 caused by its unclear communications. The delays caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to chase the landlord multiple times over a prolonged period and raise complaints to try to resolve the issue. It is noted that from the resident opting to have five fittings replaced for halogen ones on 12 October 2021, it took a further 2 months for the repair to be done and it is not clear from the evidence why this was the case.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In this case, the landlord took over two years to replace the cabinet lights which was unreasonable. Furthermore, it was inappropriate that the landlord decided that the resident should be responsible for maintaining the fittings after they had been replaced. However, the landlord did ultimately give the resident the resolution that she wanted and it offered her £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay which she accepted. The Ombudsman considers the compensation offer to be reasonable redress in the circumstances of the case. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to pay this sum of compensation if it has not already done so and for the landlord to confirm that it is responsible for maintaining the light fittings.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s stage one response was provided 21 working days (from 2 October 2019 to 31 October 2019) after the resident had raised her complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge that the response was late or explain why the it had not met its 10 working day timescale. However, it was reasonable that the landlord relied upon the tenancy agreement and its repair policy in deciding that it was not responsible for replacing the bulb, as the resident had not raised the background to her request at that point.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will normally consider escalations raised within two months of its stage one response. As the resident’s escalation in this case was outside of that timescale, possibly because she had not initially received its stage one response, it was reasonable that the landlord accepted it. However, the stage two response was provided 87 working days (from 14 February 2020 to 17 June 2020) after the resident had escalated her complaint. Again the landlord’s response did not acknowledge that its response was late or explain why it had not met its 20 working day timescale.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the additional background information that the resident gave in her escalation. However, there is no evidence that it did so and it did not address the points she had raised in its response. Furthermore, no evidence has been seen that the stage two complaint was investigated by a senior staff member as its policy says, and landlord’s response did not signpost the resident to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
It was reasonable that landlord considered the resident’s letter of 19 October 2020 as a continuation of her complaint given it was about the same issue. However, it is not clear why it took the landlord 27 working days (from 19 October 2020 to 25 November 2020) to respond. Similarly, it is not clear why landlord did not refer to its response of 25 November 2020 as being its final response to her complaint when contacted by the Ombudsman on 27 July 2021 or upon receiving a CHFO on 27 August 2021.
The resident had asked for transcripts of call recordings in her letter of 19 October 2020 and the evidence shows that the landlord gave conflicting advice about its call retention arrangements. This was because it initially advised that call recordings were automatically deleted after 90 days but subsequently advised they were deleted after 100 days. It is not clear from the evidence why the landlord gave conflicting information to the resident.
When the landlord was not able to provide the call recordings that the resident had requested, it was reasonable that the landlord provided records from its housing management and repairs systems instead. However, it is not clear why it took the landlord two months to respond (from 19 October 2020 to 21 December 2020) to the resident’s request.
It was reasonable that landlord gave the resident options for resolving her complaint. However, as set out in paragraph 29, its condition regarding the resident maintaining the fittings if they were replaced with halogen ones was inappropriate. Furthermore, the landlord did not offer the options until 13 September 2021 and could have done so sooner.
As with its first stage two response, no evidence has been seen that a senior staff member investigated the complaint or provided the landlord’s second stage two response of 8 October 2021 as required by the landlord’s policy. Aside from this, the response complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and the landlord’s policy, and provided an acceptable resolution for the resident. This suggests there has been improvement in complaint handling over the period of this case. However, the landlord should consider whether its policy reference to senior staff members investigating stage two complaints accurately reflects its current practice.
The landlord’s failure to signpost the resident to the Ombudsman in its stage two response of 17 June 2020 until its subsequent response on 25 November 2020, and its failure to clarify its position regarding its final response from 25 November 2020 to 8 October 2021 resulted in an inappropriate delay in the resident accessing alternative resolution to her complaint. Had the landlord followed the requirements of the Code, the resident’s complaint could have been considered by the Ombudsman up to fifteen months earlier (from 13 August 2020) which may have led to a quicker resolution.
The landlord did not comply with the Code or its complaints policy in the aspects set out above. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. In relation to the failures identified, an order has been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay compensation of £250 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to her kitchen cabinet lights.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Although it took the landlord over two years to replace the cabinet lights with halogen fittings, this provided the resolution that the resident wanted. The landlord offered compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays and this was accepted by the resident.
The landlord did not comply with the code or its complaints policy in the aspects set out above and took two years to finally resolve the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the shortcomings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint. The compensation must be paid to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £250 offered on 8 October 2021 if it has not already done so. Payment of this sum is the basis on which the Ombudsman made a finding of reasonable redress.
2. Write to the resident to confirm that it is responsible for maintaining the light fittings and her responsibility is to replace bulbs when needed.
3. Consider whether its policy reference to senior staff members investigating stage two complaints accurately reflects its current practice.