Wandle Housing Association Limited (202110380)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110380

Wandle Housing Association Limited

28 February 2022


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 handling of a leak into the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She lives in a flat in a block of similar properties. She says that she suffers from an autoimmune disease and other health conditions, including lung and heart disease.
  2. The resident reported a leak from above on 4 January 2021. She also said there was the smell of damp in her bathroom. On 11 January 2021 she said the leak had worsened and caused her electrics to trip. The landlord attended that day and made safe the electrics. On 4 February 2021 the resident reported that the leak was uncontainable. The landlord attended on 7 February and identified that an urgent repair was needed to the balcony of the flat above. The landlord says it completed this repair on 8 February.
  3. The resident first raised a complaint on 31 January 2021. She was concerned about how long it was taking to fix the leak, the damp conditions in the property and the effect this was having on her health. In response the landlord said that it had treated the leak as a routine repair, with a target of 28 days. It offered £130 compensation as it had failed to attend within the 28 day target. It said it would repair the ceiling on 8 April 2021.
  4. In the resident’s complaint to this Service she said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. She said the delays and damp had impacted her mental and physical health.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the internal structure and ceiling of the property. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will complete emergency repairs (those necessary to avoid danger such as uncontainable leaks, or total loss of electricity) within 24 hours. It will attend to urgent repairs in 7 days. It will complete routine repairs (non-emergencies such as minor leaks), and any follow–on work within 28 calendar days. The complaints and compensation policy states that an offer of compensation will reflect the extent of any service failure and the impact these had on the resident.
  2. The available evidence shows that it took the landlord five weeks to repair the leak. While the landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it will attend to minor leaks within 28 days, the resident reported on 11 January 2021 (seven days after the initial report) that the leak had got worse and was tripping the electrics. This should have alerted the landlord to the urgency of the situation, however there is no evidence that it considered bringing the repair appointment forward at this time. It eventually attended on 7 February, after the resident reported that the leak was “pouring” into her living room and was uncontainable.
  3. Therefore, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord repairing the leak and this was unsatisfactory given the impact the leak was likely to have had on the living conditions in the property. It then took the landlord at least a further 57 days to repair the ceiling which the resident had explained had “gaping” holes in it, significantly exceeding the target for routine repairs. No explanation has been offered by the landlord for the delay in completing the follow-on works.
  4. It is acknowledged that the resident has described the impact the outstanding repairs had on her health and wellbeing. This Service cannot determine if the leak or living conditions in the property had any impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing as this would fall within the remit of a personal injury claim (and would need to be pursued via insurers or the courts). However, the landlord should have considered whether there were any vulnerabilities caused by the resident’s health conditions which meant it needed to expedite the repairs. There is no evidence that it did so.
  5. It is acknowledged that the landlord apologised for the delay in remedying the leak and offered compensation to the resident. However, it failed to identify that it should have treated the leak as an urgent repair and its compensation offer was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings. There is also no evidence that the landlord learnt from the resident’s complaint and has taken steps to ensure that the same mistakes will not recur. Although it said that it would work to improve its service in future, it did not explain how it would be doing this.
  6. The resident explained in her complaint that due to the COVID-19 pandemic she was isolating in her home. She requested compensation for contractors not wearing PPE during appointments, three damaged buckets (used to collect water), repair delays, distress and inconvenience, and the impact on her health (from the damp and stress). The landlord did not acknowledge or address the resident’s health concerns, damaged buckets, or her comment that contractors had not worn PPE. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that we expect landlord to address all points raised in a complaint. Even if the landlord did not believe compensation was warranted for these factors, it should have acknowledged the resident’s request and clearly set out its position on the matter. By not doing so, it failed to provide a thorough complaint response.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the leak.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the service failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leak This is in addition to the £130 previously offered.
    3. Review its handling of the repairs and implement any necessary remedial action to ensure the same mistakes do not recur. The landlord should provide a copy of its findings to both the resident and this Service.