Wandle Housing Association Limited (202015753)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015753

Wandle Housing Association Limited

2 February 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 regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a contractor’s misuse of communal parking facilities and damage caused.
This Service has also made a separate finding regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a housing association.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it aims to provide responses at stage one of its complaint procedure within 10 working days and at stage two within 20 working days. The policy states that at both stages the landlord will inform residents if it unable to meet these timeframes and explain why.
Section 4.4 of the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy outlines that it is responsible for repairs to “any communal areas such as…communal lighting…(and) communal drains.” Section 4.6 of its Repairs and Maintenance policy notes that a “complete loss of lighting to communal areas” is considered an emergency repair that would usually be attended to within 24 hours.

Scope of investigation

In correspondence with this Service, the resident has submitted details of a further complaint she made against the landlord regarding the maintenance of an alleyway and its decision to remove a community garden (reference CAS-75260-D1P2Q3). The landlord provided a stage two complaint response to this on 11 November 2022. However, this correspondence relates to issues unrelated to the matters under investigation in this case. As such, they will not be considered here and the resident, if she remains unhappy with the landlord’s response, can refer the later complaint to this Service for the consideration of a new investigation.
The landlord has advised this Service that the resident made a previous complaint which it responded to in 2020 and noted that it was along similar lines to the matters under investigation here. Similarly, the resident has advised she was under the impression that the complaint she submitted in March 2021 was a continuation of her previous complaint, which was “stuck at stage two” (of the landlord’s complaint procedure). However, as this Service has not seen details of the previous complaint, or the landlord’s response(s) to it, and there is no evidence the previous complaint was referred to this Service, this investigation will only focus on events that took place in the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint of March 2021 and in the months afterwards. However, earlier events may be referred to within this report to provide context.
Within her complaint and correspondence with this Service, the resident has also stated she considers the issues with the contractors had a negative impact on her mental and physical health. However, it is not within the remit and expertise of this Service to determine if there is any causal link between reported health issues and any disrepair issues. This is in accordance with Paragraph 39 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (“the Ombudsman may not consider matters where it considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”). The resident may wish to seek independent advice regarding a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or lack thereof.

Summary of events

Around March 2019, contractors began working at a development adjacent to the resident’s street. The development works, which this Service does not have details of, subsequently went on until January 2021. The resident advised that contractors used the communal parking area by her property “as a building site”, parking large lorries there and causing issues for her and other residents. She advised these issues were raised with the landlord but no resolutions were found.
Information provided by the resident indicates she contacted the landlord in March 2019 to advise of issues caused by the contractor parking heavy vehicles in the road. A text message from the landlord, sent in April 2019, indicates it had previously responded to her regarding the issue, but this Service has not seen details of this correspondence. However, further information from the resident shows the landlord contacted her again in April 2020 regarding the “misuse of parking” by the contractor and noted that it would contact the contractor “again” to ask they ensure their employees “park away from the scheme”. It also advised it would ask the local authority to attend as the contractor was appeared to not be “adhering to the terms of the (parking restrictions).”
Subsequently, records show the landlord logged a complaint from the resident on 3 March 2021. It noted a support worker had written on her behalf to raise concerns over “the length of time being taken to complete development works at (the resident’s) home”. The support worker highlighted the impact the works were having on the resident’s mental health and that she felt “upset and frustrated” at a perceived lack of support from the landlord, having first reported issues with the works being carried out in March 2019. The resident’s desired outcome was for the landlord to confirm how long the works would take to complete and to update the support worker so they could “continue to provide support”.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 March 2021 and stated her complaint had been open with the landlord since March 2019 and “left standing at…stage two for a number of months”. She outlined the following concerns:
1. In March 2019, contractors had begun work near to the resident’s home which caused “chaos, noise nuisance, damage to private property” and operatives “abused…our carpark”.
2. The landlord initially ignored residents’ concerns but eventually suggested keeping a diary and providing photographic evidence as “with enough evidence from…tenants” the landlord would prosecute the contractors.
3. The situation carried on for the past two years, causing the resident to have a “mental breakdown relapse” for which she required continued treatment.
4. The landlord had offered £150 compensation, but this had not been paid.
5. Around December 2020/January 2021, the landlord had advised the contractor to “power wash and clean” the carpark, fix external lighting which they had damaged, re-paint parking markings and unblock external drains which were full of building waste. However, the contractors had since left the site without carrying out those works and the landlord, despite being informed, had not provided any response to the resident.
6. The resident highlighted the damaged lighting caused a safety issue as she had had to “walk across dangerous building debris” across the carpark, had been unable to use a carpark space and experienced “extreme overflowing drains” when there was heavy rainfall.
On 22 March 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It summarised her complaint as regarding:
1. A lack of response from one particular member of staff.
2. Development works carried out by the contractors “causing a nuisance”.
3. Repairs to lighting in the external car park.
4. Outstanding repairs following damage caused by the contractors, including:
  1. Unblocking external drains.
  2. Repainting parking bays.
Having carried out a review of the case and its correspondence with the resident, the landlord acknowledged its communication had been “infrequent, inconsistent and ineffective” despite the resident’s “many attempts” to inform it of the issues. It acknowledged it could have been “more responsive” to her communication and that it should have provided the resident with more information regarding its communications with the contractor. It apologised for the fact it “had not been able to resolve the impact of (the contractor’s) development works for the past two years” despite having raised concerns with senior staff at the contractor and the local authority’s Nuisance Pollution Team.
The landlord acknowledged there were outstanding repairs and issues yet to be addressed and apologised these had not been completed despite the resident having raised the matters previously. It noted it had “got things wrong”, apologised for the “inconvenience and distress” the resident had been caused and advised it would learn from the resident’s experience. It also noted the contractor had now completed their works so “the nuisance behaviour has ceased”. To resolve the complaint, the landlord advised it would do the following:
1. Write to all residents to consult on parking arrangements, including the remarking of parking bays.
2. Carry out an estate inspection to “address all external, communal repairs”. Residents would be invited to join in the “estate walkabout”.
3. Pay the resident £275 compensation. This consisted of: £100 for its poor communication (failing to respond within policy timescales or address all her concerns); £75 for the “continuous” noise suffered and inconvenience experienced during the works; £50 for stress caused; and an additional £50 goodwill gesture for the “personal time” the resident had expended.
The resident contacted the landlord a week later to acknowledge its response. She advised she was “unable” to accept the £275 compensation as she had suffered “emotionally, physically and mentally” for two years as a result of the works and disruption. She noted the contractors had twice damaged her car, she had needed to seek medical help and take time off work. The resident advised she had calculated that dealing with the contractor and landlord during this period had cost her £578 in “time, phone/travel cost and lost earnings” and asked the landlord to reconsider its offer “so that we can put closure to this complaint”.
Subsequently, the resident contacted this Service to advise she had yet to receive its stage two response. This Service therefore contacted the landlord on her behalf on 6 May 2021 and it was asked to provide her with a response within 10 working days. This Service then sent the landlord further emails on 24 May, 10 and 25 June 2021 chasing a response. The landlord ultimately responded to this Service on 6 July 2021, clarified it had reviewed the situation and had now reopened the resident’s complaint and would provide a stage two response within 20 working days. It contacted the resident the same day to acknowledge her escalation request and advise her of its timeframe to respond.
The landlord subsequently issued its stage two complaint response on 2 August 2021 and noted it had spoken to the resident that day to discuss her complaint in more detail. It summarised her outstanding complaints as regarding:
1. Work to rectify damage caused by the contractor had not been carried out.
2. “Parking issues” had been reviewed but there had been no further progress or communication regarding this.
3. The compensation offered by the landlord at stage one of its complaints procedure was “not sufficient for the length of time and personal impact” the reported issues with the contractor had had on the resident.
The landlord apologised for the fact the resident’s concerns had “remained unresolved for such a considerable length of time”. It noted the bulk of her remaining concerns centred around an agreement between the contractor and the landlord to resolve issues which included:
1. Unblocking external drains which had become blocked with building debris.
2. “Rectifying the (external communal) lighting that had gone out” following contractor works on the electrics in the area.
3. Jet wash the parking area to “restore the space back to how it was before the works had commenced.”
4. The landlord also noted it had agreed to “find a more satisfactory solution to the parking issues in the Close.”
Regarding the agreement the landlord had with the contractor, it noted that it was now “highly unlikely that (the contractor) will return to finalise these issues” given the length of time that had passed since they left site. The landlord advised it therefore agreed to rectify the issues itself “as quickly as possible” and had raised orders to reinstate the lighting, clear the drains and jet wash the parking area. It advised it would confirm “over the next fortnight” when the works had been, or would be, completed. The landlord also agreed to consider the resident’s proposals for an alternative bay numbering system in the car park to and stated it would “work with (her) on improving the parking arrangements” on site.
Finally, the landlord advised it had reconsidered its compensation offer and agreed to increase this to £1,000. This consisted of: £250 for its communication failings; £250 for the resident’s “time and effort” pursuing a satisfactory response to her concerns; £250 for stress caused; £150 to recognise the resident’s “time spent dealing with these issues” and the personal impact on her; and £100 for the noise nuisance and inconvenience caused. The landlord also asked the resident to let it know if the resolution actions set out in its response were not completed.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident confirmed that the drains had been unblocked on 6 September 2021 and the lighting was reconnected on 8 September 2021. Landlord records indicate the jet wash of the car park was carried out at some point before 11 October 2021.
After referring her complaint to this Service, the resident advised the £1,000 compensation awarded by the landlord at the end of its complaint procedure had yet to be paid, despite having requested it be paid into her rent account on several occasions. In correspondence with this Service in November 2022, the landlord confirmed the payment had not been processed due to an “oversight at the time”. It advised had contacted her to request her bank details the previous month but had not heard back. On 25 January 2023, the resident confirmed to this Service that the landlord had made contact with her in October 2022 and she would be providing her bank details the next day. As of 31 January 2023 however, the resident advised she had still not received the compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a contractor’s misuse of communal parking and damage caused

It is not disputed that contractors working at a development adjacent to the resident’s street caused disruption. Internal landlord communication seen by this Service indicates it experienced issues when communicating with the contractor. Although it is acknowledged that the landlord was not responsible for causing damage to the parking area itself, in particular the lighting and blocked drains, as landlord it retained ultimate responsibility for maintaining the condition of communal areas, which included the parking area, as per its repairs policy. It therefore had a responsibility to respond promptly and reasonably to the resident’s concerns which, according to the evidence available, it did not do.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that lack of lighting in communal areas is classed as an emergency repair. Its repair records note the resident contacted it three times in October 2019 to report there were no lights in the external communal area and reference is made to an operative attending twice in September 2019 but that the “problem is reoccurring”. Reference is also made in its records to the issue being a “H&S (health and safety) risk” although it is unclear whether this was the landlord’s assessment or if it noted what the resident had said. Regardless, evidence shows the landlord was aware of the issue as early as September 2019 and that the problem was unresolved a month later when the resident contacted it again.
The landlord’s repair records do not contain further reference to the communal lighting until it noted contact from the resident on 26 May 2020 to advise the communal lighting was “having issues” and the lights were not coming on at night. Again, there is no record of the landlord raising a repair order, whether on an emergency or routine basis. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord again did not act in accordance with its repairs policy. Repair records show the resident made further reports in December 2020, when she advised that “all lights in communal area are out”, the area was “pitch black” in two locations and she was worried about safety and again in April 2021. Although its repair records do not provide details of any orders raised, internal landlord correspondence noted that three orders were raised on 10 and 11 December 2020 but were all cancelled, the latter appointment because the operative could not find the intake cupboard. A further order was raised on 5 May 2021 but was again cancelled.
While internal landlord correspondence indicates it did attempt to raise orders in December 2020, this was still over a year after the resident’s first report in October 2019, which should have prompted it to log an emergency repair. This was a significant and unreasonable delay for which the landlord has not provided a clear explanation. There is no evidence the lighting was attended to after September 2019, despite the fact the landlord should have treated the lack of lighting as an emergency repair. This was a service failure and meant the landlord did not act in accordance with its repair policy.
After the appointments raised in December 2020 were cancelled, the landlord took another five months to raise a further order, which was then again cancelled. This was a further unreasonable delay and furthermore there is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with any updates regarding the orders it has raised, or kept her informed regarding how it was attempting to progress this issue or what was causing the delays. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord did not treat the resident fairly. It caused her to spend unnecessary time and trouble chasing it for updates, on top of the impact of the unresolved repairs themselves which caused her distress.
There was a similar situation regarding the drainage issues the resident reported, which she stated had been caused by building debris and detritus related to the contractor’s works. Repair records show the resident reported this to the landlord in March 2020 when she advised the guttering was “blocked and overflowing”. The landlord raised a request for the guttering to be checked, cleared and tested but it is unclear from its records if any works order was raised and, in its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged this was not carried out. While this would have been considered a routine repair, there is again no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s report appropriately and the work was not carried until over a year later, following the resident’s complaint. The landlord again did not act in accordance with its repairs policy as there was an unreasonable delay which meant it did not treat the resident fairly.
Internal landlord correspondence and its complaint responses to the resident refer to it being let down by the contractor, who had agreed to carry out repairs to the damage it had caused but then left the site without carrying these out. However, this Service has not seen any direct correspondence between the landlord and the contractor which shows when it made an arrangement for the contractor to complete these repairs and when it had chased these up. This means the landlord is not able to evidence the steps it took to try and progress the repairs with the contractor and manage the situation on behalf of its residents, who remained affected by the damaged lighting and drainage for a significant length of time. The landlord is unable to demonstrate it sought to act in its tenants’ best interests and acted reasonably in the circumstances.
As above, the landlord was ultimately responsible for the upkeep of the parking area and carrying out repairs to communal areas. While it is understandable that it may have decided to ensure the contractor made good the damage it caused, the landlord should have considered carrying out the repairs itself so as to make the area safe and act in accordance with the terms of its repairs policy, and sought to recharge the contractor retrospectively. However, there is no evidence it did so. This resulted in significant and unreasonable delays in carrying out repairs to the communal lighting and drainage, which were ultimately not completed until September 2021, over two years after the resident first made the landlord aware of the problem and which should have been responded to on an emergency basis.
Following the resident’s complaint, although the landlord’s stage one response of March 2021 acknowledged there were outstanding repairs and apologised for the fact it had “got things wrong” regarding its handling of her repair reports, the landlord did not take appropriate action to progress the repairs. It advised it would arrange an estate walkaround which was a reasonable step but in the Ombudsman’s opinion should have been carried out in conjunction with raising repair orders, rather than causing further delays. In any event, there is no evidence of repairs raised following this, save for the cancelled repair order in May 2021 referred to above. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord missed the initial opportunity to “put things right” following the resident’s complaint, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
However, it was constructive that the landlord’s stage two response, issued in September 2021, contained a further apology for the length of time taken to address the resident’s concerns. It accepted it was “unlikely” the contractor would return to site and repair the damage, which the landlord stated it had agreed to do. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord agreed to carry out the repairs itself “as quickly as possible” and it appropriately raised orders to fix the lighting, clear the drains and jet wash the parking area. Records show these were actioned relatively promptly and completed by October 2021, although it is again unclear why the landlord did not prioritise the repair in line with its repairs policy.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord should also have acknowledged it had a responsibility to attend to the repairs itself in the first place, rather than seeming to absolve itself of the responsibility to carry out repairs by stating it had been “let down” by the contractor and effectively blaming a third party for the significant delays. That it did not do so is of concern and brings into question whether the landlord would have learned from the resident’s experience.
However, it was an example of good practice, that the landlord used its stage two response to carry out a proper review of the case and its stage one response. Internal correspondence seen by this investigation indicates the landlord, in particular its Head of Customer Service Delivery, took the situation seriously and identified a “catalogue of issues”. They requested the relevant repairs to be raised promptly and appropriately reconsidered the amount of compensation they had been offered, with the aim of restoring the resident’s trust.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s final offer of £1,000 compensation, which considered the impact of its failings on the resident and the time and trouble she had been caused, was appropriate and amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances. While the failure to complete the repairs clearly had an sizeable impact on the resident, the issues were external and related to a communal area, rather than within her home. As such, the landlord’s award was in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests awards of £700 and above for remedies which recognise maladministration that has a long-term effect on a complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both.
To be clear, if the landlord had not carried out an appropriate review at stage two of its complaint process and awarded the resident a level of compensation that was deemed to be reasonable, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration regarding its response to the concerns the resident raised.
It remains unclear whether any further action has taken place regarding the resident’s concerns over the parking situation in the communal parking area. Although this was referred to in the landlord’s complaint response, this Service has not seen details regarding the specific issues raised were and how they impacted on the resident, so it has not been possible to make further findings regarding this aspect of the complaint has not been made here. However, it is noted that the landlord promised to consider proposals for an alternative bay numbering system but while internal landlord correspondence indicates it made enquiries with a contractor in and around November 2021, there is no evidence to show whether this was progressed further. An order is therefore made at the end of this report for the landlord to write to the resident with an update on its position regarding the car parking situation and whether it will be able to accommodate requests or suggestions made by the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

This Service has also considered how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint. As noted above, there were examples of good practice regarding how the landlord carried out its review of the case at stage two and took the opportunity to reassess the compensation it had offered at stage one and increase this to a more reasonable amount.
However, the stage two response was not issued until September 2021 which was significantly outside the target time of 20 working days outlined in its complaint policy. Its failure to progress her complaint led the resident to contact this Service. This was not appropriate and meant the resident was caused additional inconvenience and time and trouble chasing a reply.
The landlord’s stage two complaint did not acknowledge the significant length of time it took to provide a response and did not provide any kind of resolution for the delay in escalating the complaint and providing its stage two response, such as an apology or award of compensation. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord failed to recognise the additional stress it had caused and missed an opportunity to “put things right” for the resident in accordance with the Complaint Handling Code.
Furthermore, while the landlord’s stage two response appropriately set out the repair actions it would undertake to resolve the complaint and it generally carried these out promptly, it is of concern that the compensation it offered the resident has, at the time of this determination, still not been paid. The landlord noted in October 2021 this was an “oversight” but in the Ombudsman’s opinion this is not an adequate explanation for the significant length of time – at that point, just over a year since the stage two response was issued – that elapsed, particularly as this Service has seen evidence that the resident had chased up the award on several occasions, having requested it to be paid into her rent account.
Fulfilling the actions set out in complaint responses is a crucial part of a landlord’s complaint handling and the resident was ultimately caused further inconvenience and distress by its failure to process the compensation it had awarded. Added to the fact that there was a lengthy but unacknowledged delay in providing its final complaint response, overall there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint and further orders have been made at the end this report regarding this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord regarding the its response to the resident’s concerns about a contractor’s misuse of communal parking facilities and damage caused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to appropriately respond to or address the concerns the resident raised, and it did not act in accordance with its repair responsibilities when it failed to treat the faulty communal lights as an emergency repair. While it is recognised the landlord was not at fault for the damage to the communal parking area, it should have progressed the repairs itself so as to act in the best interests of its’ residents, rather than wait for the contractor to carry out repairs which they ultimately did not complete. This resulted in a significant delay in carrying out the required repairs and caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
However, the landlord’s final complaint response appropriately acknowledged some of its failings and the fact the issues reported should not have remained unresolved for such a significant period. Its review of the case recognised the impact the situation had had on the resident and it ultimately awarded a sum of compensation that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, adequately reflected the detriment caused to the resident and constituted reasonable redress.
The landlord failed to appropriately escalate the resident’s complaint despite her request and despite several further contacts from this Service. Its stage two letter did not appropriately acknowledge there had been a lengthy delay in providing its final response and following this it failed to appropriately process the compensation it had offered by way of partly resolving the complaint. To date this has yet to be paid, meaning there has been a significant and unreasonable delay which has caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to provide an update on the communal parking area and what amendments have been made, if any, since the conclusion of the resident’s complaint. The landlord should provide this Service with a copy of this letter.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for its failure to process the compensation it awarded in September 2021.
3. Pay the resident the outstanding £1000 compensation, awarded in September 2021, as soon as possible if it has not done so already.
4. Pay the resident £250 compensation for its complaint handling failures, consisting of £50 for its delayed stage two response and £200 for its failure to process the compensation it awarded in 2021.
5. The landlord should action the above orders within four weeks of the date of this determination and provide this Service with evidence of compliance.

Recommendations

It should also review how it manages its complaint handling so as to ensure that staff appropriately progress actions agreed in its responses.