Wandle Housing Association Limited (202105513)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105513

Wandle Housing Association Limited

9 October 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:
1. Handling of the window replacement works.
2. Response to a leak affecting the property and the associated internal damage.
3. Handling of the formal complaint in relation to the above mentioned matters.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord since 2001, and lives in a 1 bedroom flat. The flat is located on the first floor of a three storey building which has a total of 3 flats.
The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord will maintain the structure and outside of the property, including the roof and windows. In addition to this, the landlord will also maintain inside walls, ceilings, fixtures, and fittings.
The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it has two priorities for repairs which are, emergency and appointed. The target timeframe to complete emergency repairs is 24 hours but, if necessary, the landlord will attend to make safe sooner and arrange a later date to attend to repair. The target timeframe to complete appointed repairs is 28 days but where a repair is deemed urgent, this target is 7 days.
The landlord considers major repairs, as repairs deemed either extensive or an improvement to the existing components. It aims to complete such repairs within 90 days.
The landlord has 2 stages within its complaints procedure. The target response times are 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.

Summary of events

The resident’s windows were scheduled to be replaced on 2 March 2021. On the day of the appointment, the kitchen window had not been made but the remainder of the windows were installed.
The resident maintains that the contractor returned to fit the kitchen window on 25 and 26 March 2021, but the window had still not been made. It was also found that the other windows installed on 2 March 2021, did not fit as the measurements taken for them were incorrect.
Sometime in March 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of the window replacement work. This Service has not been provided with a record of this, but the resident has informed this Service that the complaint was made over the phone.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response to her complaint about the window replacement work. It said that it investigated by speaking with colleagues in the major works team and the contractor. The landlord advised that it was of the understanding that the windows had been installed and were in the process of being made good. It advised that the resident could make contact if there were any issues with the works being completed and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It also advised that the resident’s feedback would help it to do better in the future.
The contractor attended on a third occasion, to replace a glass in one of the windows, on 29 April 2021. When the operatives arrived, they found that the glass did not fit so the appointment was rescheduled. Following this, the resident was expecting the windows to be reinstalled on 8 June 2021 however, this did not happen. The resident notified the landlord on the day and advised that she had taken time off to accommodate its contractor.
The landlord then issued another stage 1 response to the complaint on 14 June 2021. It advised that the window contractor was going to return to the property the week of 21 June 2021 and would later agree a date for installation.
The landlord has not confirmed when the window replacement work was finalised but, the resident has confirmed that they were replaced sometime in June 2021.
On 26 June 2021 the resident reported that a heavy leak was penetrating through her ceiling light in the hallway. The leak was believed to be coming from the roof. As well as the repair for the leak, the landlord also raised a repair to make safe the hallway light fitting. The landlord raised these repairs again on at least two more occasions, on 6 July and 7 August 2021.
On 9 July 2021, the resident sent a letter to the windows’ contractor requesting £345 compensation for the times she had to take to accommodate several appointments between December 2020 and April 2021. She informed in the letter that as a result of the incorrect measurements being taken, she had the wrong sized windows and had to reschedule a several appointments. The resident also said that during the installation work, her toilet tank lid and bath panel was damaged. The resident sent the landlord a copy of the letter on 19 July 2021. When doing so, she asked if the landlord could act as an intermediary and forward a copy of her letter, to the contractor as she had not received a response.
Sometime in July 2021, the resident also raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of the leak. The date the complaint was submitted has not been provided but the landlord acknowledged it on 26 July 2021.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the leak complaint, on 9 August 2021. It confirmed that its subcontractor attended to the roof on 30 June 2021 and found that another contractor recently replaced the roof. The landlord said as a result, it had raised a recall to the contractor who replaced the roof to trace and remedy the leak. The landlord advised that once complete, it would arrange repairs for the internal areas affected by the leak, including the hallway light which it confirmed was isolated on 7 August 2021.
The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and distress to the resident and said that it would learn from the complaint. It advised that it was unable to offer compensation because the complaint was ongoing but said it was willing to review this once works were completed. The landlord advised that while matters were outstanding, it was happy to continue liaising with the resident about the complaint.
Following receipt of the stage 1 response, the resident contacted the landlord on 12 August 2021. She explained that the roofing operatives had attended and suggested that a plumber attend, as the leak was also affecting the property below hers. The resident advised that she would have liked for the landlord to oversee the works as so far there was no consistency in the staff dealing with the repair.
The resident’s email of 12 August 2021 was not received by the landlord and the resident approached this Service for assistance. She informed this Service that the leak was ongoing and substantial. Following contact from this Service the landlord confirmed that it would escalate the complaint, in light of the information this Service relayed from the resident.
On 24 August 2021, the resident also contacted this Service again with copies of the complaint responses she received in April and June 2021 regarding the window replacement work. As both responses referenced a stage 2 being available, this Service contacted the landlord and asked it to confirm the status of the case. In response, the landlord said that its response of 14 June 2021 was its final position. It said that it had made an error in the response by advising the resident that she had the option to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord provided its final response to the complaint about the leak on 8 September 2021. It said that it would arrange for a repairs manager and senior surveyor to attend the resident’s property to investigate the source of the leak. It also apologised for not sufficiently resolving the resident’s concerns at stage 1.
The resident contacted this Service in October 2021 and said that she had not received a final repsonse from the landlord about her window replacement complaint. This Service then requested that the landlord provide the resident with a final complaint response to the matter and include her referral rights to this Service within the response.
The landlord issued a response on 17 November 2021. In its response it found that it had not completed the work within its standard timescales. It apologised for any inconvenience and distress that may have been caused to the resident and stated that it would learn from her experience. It said that when it responded at stage 1, it did not adequately address the issues raised or provide reassurances of the following steps. The landlord also mentioned in the response that it was aware of the leak into the resident’s property. It said that this was being reviewed by its repairs team and arrangements were being made for a joint inspection to take place for it to identify the source of the leak. It told the resident that she would be contacted with an appointment for the inspection.

Post complaints procedure

The resident has informed this Service that the landlord attended to inspect her property on 25 November 2021. The landlord has not provided this Service with any notes or report from this inspection. The resident maintains that the landlord agreed several actions to address the ongoing leak and the associated damage to the property. In addition to this, the resident says that the landlord agreed to arrange for an alternative contractor to remedy the damage caused during the window replacement work.
The resident confirmed that she did not hear back from the landlord about works agreed during the inspection and so chased the landlord in January 2022. She says that she was promised calls by the landlord but did not receive them. As of August 2023, the resident has confirmed that the leak has been ongoing and none of the internal damage has been remedied. The reported damage in the bathroom following the window replacement has also not been rectified.
This Service contacted the landlord in August 2023 to request further information on what work it had completed to the roof, the associated internal damage and the damage that occurred during the window works. A response from the landlord has not been forthcoming.

Assessment and findings

The handling of the window and door replacement works.

The window replacement works were an improvement on the existing component in the property. Therefore, the work would be considered major works which, in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, should be completed within 90 days.
The installation took place on 2 March 2021 however, due to the windows being the incorrect size the resident was required to accommodate further appointments for the rectification work. While this Service does not have the specific date as to when the windows were completed, information from the parties confirms that it was 21 June 2021 at the earliest. This was 3 months later and at least 112 days later than the original date.
The landlord’s complaints policy explains that it will:
1. respond to all points raised in a complaint;
2. explain why any failures have occurred;
3. what it has or will do to put things right; and
4. the steps it would take to prevent reoccurrence.
It is evident throughout the landlord’s responses to the complaint, that it has failed to complete any investigation and do what is set out in its complaints policy.
Other than stating that the work was not completed within its service standard, the landlord did not explain what its findings were in respect of the issues the resident raised. The specific issues raised was that the contractor had taken the wrong measurements and then fit the wrong sized windows, resulting in the resident having to reschedule five appointments. The resident also reported that damage had occurred during the installation work.
As a result of not investigating the complaint issues, the landlord has not provided a satisfactory response to the matter raised. Its response dated 14 June 2021, appropriately provided information about when the resident could expect to be contacted about the installation of the windows. But as this would have been the second time the windows were installed due to the wrong measurements being taken and therefore, an error on its part, it is expected the landlord would have acknowledged this and the inconvenience caused to the resident. It is also unreasonable that the landlord was made aware that the resident had to have several appointments for the work but offered no explanation or specific apology for this inconvenience.
The landlord’s apology was not personal to the resident and the issues she experienced. It offered no compensation to the resident for the fact that she had to have the windows reinstalled or, her time and trouble accommodating this work. It also did not provide any information about what it had learnt or actions it would take to improve, further supporting the view that it did not investigate what had happened.
The landlord also did not respond to the report that its contractors had left damage during the installation. The resident has provided images of the damage reported in the bathroom and confirmed that the landlord has not addressed them to date. The images provided, show that there are scuffs to the wall areas and the bath panel. The toilet tank lid is also cracked.
The landlord’s failure to complete any investigation into the issues raised by the resident is inappropriate and not in accordance with its complaint policy. It has also not demonstrated the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The resident highlighted issues that indicated that the major works were not effectively managed, leading to several visits which were avoidable. But the landlord offered no response to those issues, a remedy to the outstanding damage reported to the residents bathroom, or any compensation to recognise her time and trouble.

The response to the leak to the property

At the time the leak was first reported on 26 June 2021, it was noted that the leak was heavy and going through the ceiling light in the hallway. It would be expected that the landlord attended to make the light safe as a matter of emergency, due to the risk of electrocution or fire. And following this, take steps to investigate and remedy the leak at the earliest opportunity.
An emergency repair was raised for the light on the day of the report, but there is no evidence that the landlord attended to this within its 24 hour service standard for emergency repairs. The repair records provided indicate that the landlord did not attend until 19 July 2021, three weeks after the report. However, this Service notes that in the landlord’s response to the complaint, it states that it attended to make the ceiling light safe on 7 August 2021. Based on the landlord’s acceptance that it made the light safe on 7 August 2021, it is concerning that it has not addressed this significant delay of six weeks to make the light safe.
The landlord has not explained why it took such a significant period of time to make the light safe or apologised for the delay. It has not considered that the delay in attending to make the ceiling light safe after it was affected by the leak, left the resident and the property at risk of serious detriment.
The landlord’s records confirm that it attended to the roof on 30 June 2021. This Service has not seen the report from that visit, but in the complaint response the landlord confirmed that its contractor found that the roof had been recently replaced by another contractor. On receipt of that report, it would be reasonable for the landlord to forward the repair to the contractor responsible for the roof replacement.
When the landlord responded to the complaint, six weeks later, it said it would raise the recall and did not address why it had taken so long to act on the report from 30 June 2021. It made promises to ensure that the leak would be addressed without any further delay but there is no evidence that the landlord subsequently raised the repair to the contractor who replaced the roof.
Following the initial response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not dealt with the matter efficiently and made further promises that it would investigate and resolve the leak. Specifically, at stage 2 it said it would arrange a joint inspection so that the source of the leak was investigated but offered no reassurance about when this could be expected.
At the point it promised the joint inspection, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain why it had now chosen to take a different action to what it agreed at stage 1. The landlord offered no clarity about why it would not be the roofing contractor who attended.
There is no evidence that the landlord followed through on its promise to do a joint inspection. This Service can reasonably conclude that no investigation took place after the stage 2 response was provided because, in November 2021, the landlord promised again to arrange a joint inspection. At the time it promised the second joint inspection, it was more than 4 months after the leak was reported. The leak was reported to be heavy and was later reported to also affect the property below the resident’s, so the landlord ought to have been proactive in its investigation into the source.
Identifying the source of a leak can be a process of elimination and it may not always be possible to identify it quickly. This would not necessarily constitute a failure by the landlord. In this case, the landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service to demonstrate that it took actions to source or repair the leak, within a reasonable timeframe, despite agreeing to do so several times as resolution to the complaint.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that where it has identified something has gone wrong, it has to acknowledge this and set out what action it will take to put things right. This action can include various actions such as, taking action to address the outstanding issue, providing an explanation and offering compensation.
The landlord acknowledged in the complaint that it did not address the repair efficiently but it did not consider any compensation to the resident for this. It promised to consider compensation at stage 1 once the repair had been addressed but then did not manage the repairs or keep in communication with the resident about the action it was taking.
The landlord has not taken into consideration the distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result of having increasing damage to her home, as a result of its failure to address the ongoing leak in a reasonable period of time.
Similar to its response to the complaint about the window replacement work, the landlord has not demonstrated that it investigated the complaint in line with its complaints policy. It also has not offered the resident an outcome to the outstanding repair or considered offering her any redress at all for its failure to address the leak.
The landlord’s repeated failings in the resident’s case confirms that, contrary to its complaint responses, it did not learn from the complaints or, look to make any changes to its delivery of service based on what it had found.
The resident informed this Service in August 2023, that the leak to her home is ongoing and the associated repairs have not been addressed. She confirmed that she remains without a hallway light, 2 years after the landlord isolated it in 2021. Based on the information provided by the resident and the absence of evidence by the landlord to show that it took any steps to repair the leak between June 2021 and the date of this report, the leak is believed to be outstanding more than 2 years later.
There has been a serious failure by the landlord in its response to the leak affecting the resident’s home. It did not act with urgency to address the leak or associated damage, including the ceiling light in the hallway- a passage to all areas of the property, for more than 2 years. It failed to act on its promises in the complaint response. It provided no explanation for the delay and the apology it offered alone does not take into consideration the resident’s experience as a result of its service.
The landlord’s failure in the handling of this aspect of the resident’s complaint is also compounded by the fact that at the same time the resident was pursuing it for a resolution to her complaint concerning the window replacement. In both complaints, the landlord has not offered a fair investigation or any redress other than a generic apology.
The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation, considering the specific circumstances of this complaint and the residents weekly rent for the property which is £130.65. The property comprises 4 rooms –1 bedroom, a bathroom, living room and kitchen.
The hallway downstairs is the area affected by the leak and has been without a working light since June 2021. While the hallway is not a habitable area, it is the entranceway to all the other areas in the house. The provision of light in the hallway is therefore necessary. This Service has also seen from a video provided by the resident, that where the leak is located is directly in front of a living area. This means that when the leak does occur, entry to this room is affected.
Given the nature of the repair being a leak associated with the roof, which can be a complex repair, the landlord would have been reasonably expected to have repaired the leakby 24 July 2021, which is within its appointed repair timeframe of 28 days. Taking this into account, the Ombudsman considers that compensation should be paid for the delay in the landlord resolving the leak from 25 July 2021 onwards. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay 1/5 of theresident’s weekly rent of £130.65 for the delay in addressing the leak from 25 July 2021 to the date of this report.This is a period of 115 weeks and compensation of £3,004.95
The Ombudsman has also made additional orders for compensation to address the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the delay in the landlord addressing the leak.
Given that the resident has reported that the repair to the leak is still outstanding, the Ombudsman has included an order to address this in the determination below.

Complaint handling

This Service has found that in both complaints, the landlord has not provided responses that are in accordance with its complaints policy.
The landlord has not detailed what its specific findings were on issues or what its learnings were. Based on the responses provided this Service is not satisfied that the landlord investigated either complaint. As a result, the resident has not had a fair investigation despite taking the time to present her issues and having to incur the time and trouble of contacting this Service.
During the course of this investigation, this Service has also found an issue with the landlord’s record keeping in relation to the complaints. The landlord has not provided this Service with any copies of the original complaints that it received from the resident. The resident confirmed to this Service that the complaints were made verbally over the phone however, no evidence of such has been provided.
The landlord’s responses to the complaints also do not reference the source of the complaints or when it received them. It is unclear what information the landlord has relied on to respond to the complaints. The absence of a substantial response to the specific issues raised in the complaints further highlights a potential issue with the landlord’s handling of complaints it receives.
As explained in the complaint handling code, landlords must keep a full record of the complaints receives. The landlord has not in this case, and the lack of quality in its responses reflect this and demonstrate that it has not taken the time to understand and assess the issues in its service to offer the resident a comprehensive resolution.
The landlord has missed several opportunities to identify serious issues in its delivery of services both in major works and responsive repairs. Its policy states that its investigations will be conducted impartially and seek reliable information to ensure findings and recommendations are fair and appropriate. But in this case, the landlord has not complied with this policy provision.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the window replacement works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has failed to investigate the complaint, particularly the issues raised about the delivery of service by the window contractor resulting in several rearranged appointments. The landlord did recognise that the window replacement work was not completed in the service standard timeframe but offered no explanation for this or compensation for the resident’s time and trouble. It also did not address the damage the resident reported took place during the work.
From the first report of the leak from the resident in June 2021, the landlord failed to promptly address the leak and the affected internal areas including the ceiling light. There is no evidence that it took action to source the leak even though it promised to on at least three occasions between August and November 2021. Despite the significant delay and its acceptance that the leak remained unresolved throughout the complaints procedure, it offered the resident no timeframe for completion or compensation in recognition of the circumstances, including the ongoing damage to her home and a hallway light that has been unusable for over 2 years.
Regarding the complaint handling, the landlord has failed to investigate both of the resident’s complaints in line with its own policy. There is also an indication that the landlord has not maintained records of the complaint as required to by the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £4204.95 compensation comprising:
  1. £500 for the delay and inconvenience in completing the window replacement work, including the rearrangement of several appointments.
  2. £3004.95 for the delay in addressing the leak affecting the property, the associated impact on the property and the resident’s use of it.
  3. £300 as an additional remedy for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in completing the repair to the leak.
  4. £400 in recognition of its complaint handling.
2. Arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report, in person (or in writing if preferred by the resident).
3. Confirm to this Service what systems it has in place to record complaints specifically, verbal complaints.
4. Complete an investigation to ascertain the source of the leak and:
  1. Within 2 weeks of the inspection, the landlord is to confirm the findings to the resident and to this Service. A schedule of work to address the leak is to be provided to the resident with the findings, as well as a timeframe for completion.
5. Arrange for a qualified surveyor to attend the property to assess the water damage from the leak and the reported damage in the bathroom:
  1. Within 2 weeks of the survey, the landlord is to provide the resident and this Service a schedule of works to remedy any damage identified from the leak.
  1. Within 2 weeks of the survey, the landlord is also to confirm to the resident and to this Service, what remedy it can offer in respect of the damage the resident reports was caused during the window replacement work. In the event the landlord is not able to offer repairs, it is to consider offering the resident decorative vouchers.