Wandle Housing Association Limited (202201923)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201923

Wandle Housing Association Limited

23 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:
1. record keeping;
2. handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation and the associated repairs;
3. response to the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has held an assured tenancy since 20 July 1999. The property is a two bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident had told the landlord she was disabled and a wheelchair user. The landlord had told this Service it had no vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its system.

Complaint policy

The landlord operates a two stage complaint process. Its policy says that it will respond to stage one and two complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. It says it will inform residents where it cannot keep to these timeframes.
The policy states the landlord will explain why any failure occurred and what it will do to put things right. It says, “Our responses will contain a response to all points raised in the complaint, with clear reasons for any of the decisions we’ve made”.

Repairs policy

The policy says that pests are generally the responsibility of the resident. However, it says it will deal with infestations that are due to a defect in the property allowing entry to the pest.
The policy defines ‘emergency repairs’ as, “those that are necessary to avoid danger to occupants or similar serious effects on people”. It defines ‘appointed repairs’, as all repairs that do not qualify as emergency and are dealt with by appointment. It states its service standard is to complete ‘appointed repairs’ within 28 days.
With regard to vulnerabilities, the policy says it will deal sympathetically with requests, and update resident information accordingly. It states it will use this information to verify vulnerabilities that may merit additional priority for repair work.
The policy says the landlord recognises the need for extra consideration when delivering services to vulnerable residents. It says it will consider increasing the priority of repairs for residents with a disability.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repairs log showed the resident reported an uncontainable leak from beneath her kitchen units on 11 July 2021. As it was a Sunday, the report was made to the landlord’s out of hours service, and a plumber attended the same day. The notes from the completed attendance said that the dishwasher pipe had been damaged, and a further appointment was required.
The resident made a further report to the landlord on 15 July 2021. The repairs log said the resident had been left without drinking water since the plumber isolated the water in response to a call out to a leak at the back of the sink. It said she had been “advised to call back for an emergency Monday” but had been unable to speak with anyone. The record shows the job to restore the water supply was attended the same day.
The repair log showed a further report from the resident on 15 July 2021. It stated the resident had reported the kitchen cavity wall needed to be filled behind the sink, as mice had gotten in and destroyed the pipework to her appliances. It noted the resident was vulnerable and wheelchair bound. It showed the job as completed on 9 August 2021.
The repairs log showed that works concerning the stairs had been reported by the resident’s occupational therapist (OT) and were raised on 20 October 2021. The works order was updated on 26 October 2021, noting that the OT had also reported damage to the resident’s kitchen floor. It highlighted that the resident was at risk of falling.
The resident emailed her complaint to the landlord on 29 October 2021. The key points were as follows:
1. She had reported a leak in her property on 11 July 2021.
2. The leak had been caused by rats damaging the pipe work to her kitchen appliances.
3. The rats had damaged her kitchen flooring by gnawing it.
4. It had taken eight weeks, and numerous phone calls, for the landlord’s ‘pest control’ to attend.
5. The ‘pest control’ had attended many times. It had advised the rats were gaining access via the drains, and had recommended the landlord complete a drain survey.
6. The landlord had not acted on this, nor had it contacted her.
7. Her washing machine had been out of use since the attendance, and positioned in the middle of her kitchen floor.
8. She lived alone, was disabled and had very limited mobility, making it difficult to manoeuvre in the kitchen.
9. The occasional smell of dead rats, and constant smell of rat urine were horrendous. She could hear the rats in the walls at night.
10. Her annual gas boiler inspection had not been completed. The attending engineer had considered her kitchen too dangerous to work in.
11. She had to use a laundrette for the previous 15 weeks, which was physically and financially difficult. This was costing her around £12 per week and was affecting her mental health.
12. She asked how the landlord intended to rectify the damage caused to her property, finances and wellbeing.
The landlord emailed the resident an acknowledgement of her complaint on 8 November 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding.
The landlord’s repairs log showed the job raised in response to the OT’s report, was completed on 9 November 2021.
The landlord’s pest control team sent an internal email on 9 November 2021. It said, “pest control have only just completed our first visit today”. The landlord’s pest control contractor, carried out an inspection at the resident’s property on 9 November 2021. It emailed the landlord its inspection report the same day. The email said the contractor needed the decking to be removed so it could check the drain. It advised a full drain survey may also be required. The accompanying report detailed two new rat entry points had been found, along with a high number of rat droppings. It recommended, “a drain survey and any repairs are carried out at this property ASAP”.
The decking above the drain was removed on 16 November 2021, to allow a drain survey to be carried out.
The repairs record shows the resident’s washing machine was refitted on 18 November 2021. It noted the resident was vulnerable and that ‘pest control’ had stated it could be refitted.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident on 21 November 2021. It summarised the issues raised by the resident as a rat infestation, and the disconnected washing machine being moved and not put back. The key points were as follows:
1. Its pest control contractor had attended on 9 November 2021. The washing machine had been pulled out to check for access holes, and not put back.
2. It had attended her property on 15 November 2021, and identified a blocked drain. It had raised works with its drainage contractor to rectify this.
3. A plumber had attended on 18 November 2021 and found rats had chewed through the washing machine and dishwasher pipes. He had replaced the washing machine pipes and refitted it. He could not do the same for the dishwasher.
4. The plumber had also reported that the rats had chewed through electrical wiring. Its electrical contractor would contact her to arrange an appointment.
5. Once the above work had been completed, it would manage further pest control if needed.
6. It found that its repairs team had acted in line with its policies and procedures.
The landlord’s repair record shows the electrical test was completed 22 November 2022.
The record shows the CCTV drain survey was completed on 30 November 2021, and further works raised on 1 December 2021 to, “carry out CCTV and jet to rear drains”. It also asked for a quotation to be provided for the “broken drain in back”. It shows this as being completed 7 December 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 December 2021. She said she was dissatisfied with the stage one response as, “not a single point I raised was addressed”. She requested a stage two escalation.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request via email on 13 December 2021. It asked what outcomes she was seeking, in order that it could effectively address her complaint.
The resident replied to the landlord’s email on 15 December 2021. She highlighted that she was disabled and “identified by yourselves as a vulnerable tenant”. She broke her response into two sections as follows:
1. Questions to be answered:
  1. Why did it take eight weeks after she first reported the issue for pest control to attend?
  2. Why did it take nine weeks for the landlord to respond to the pest control’s recommendations?
  3. Why did it take 20 days to respond to the occupational therapist who had raised concerns about the resident’s living conditions on 5 October 2021.
2. Rectification:
  1. An apology and acknowledgement that she had been left with the rat infestation for an unacceptable time period, and for communication failings.
  2. Confirmation her property would be repaired to the standard it was prior to July 2021.
  3. Reimbursement of her laundrette costs.
  4. Compensation for the stress and anxiety.
  5. Details of what the landlord had learnt to prevent a reoccurrence.
The landlord raised a job for the resident’s washing machine to be repaired on 15 December 2021. The repairs log showed this was completed 16 December 2021.
The landlord’s pest control contractor inspected the resident’s property 18 January 2022. The report it produced said the resident had not heard any rats in the last week. It stated no further rats had been caught and its treatment was now finished. It recommended a further rat treatment be carried out before the garden drain repair was completed in February 2022.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response letter on 8 February 2022. The covering email acknowledged that the resident wished to discuss compensation and said it had tried to contact the resident without success. It advised that it awarded compensation based on service failure and resulting inconvenience. It said that it had not identified any service failings, but was happy to discuss this further with the resident. The key points of the stage two response letter were as follows:
1. It advised it had raised the following work orders:
  1. Remove and proof behind the kitchen units;
  2. Electrical works to repair rodent damage;
  3. Fit lino to the kitchen to replace the resident’s own fitted laminate, that was removed due to rodent activity;
  4. Reinstate the broken drain and resident’s decking in the garden.
2. It said it would visit after the works were complete, to make sure the resident is happy with the result.
3. It found that it had completed works in line with its expected timescales, and had notified the resident of any delays as soon as possible.
4. It found it had acted within its policies and processes, but was sorry the resident was disappointed with the service.
5. It referred the resident to this Service if she required “further assistance”.
The resident replied to the landlord’s stage two complaint response the same day, 8 February 2022. She highlighted that she had already outlined her complaint on two occasions, and provided a summary and update. The key points were as follows:
1. She had reported the matter in July 2021. Pest control did not visit until September 2021.
2. Pest control continued attending and recommended a drain survey be completed, which did not happen until December 2021 when a collapsed drain in the garden was discovered.
3. It was now February 2022, and she was still waiting. She had lived for seven months with the smell of sewage and rat activity. Much of her property, including her kitchen appliances, had been destroyed by rats.
4. She was experiencing frequent power outages due to the wiring damage caused by rats.
5. She considered it insulting that the landlord had identified no service failings.
6. She said she had waited 32 days for the landlord’s stage two response. She gave a two week deadline for the landlord to provide a “proper response”.

Summary of events after the landlord complaint process

The landlord’s repair log showed that the drainage works were completed on 16 February 2022.
The rat prevention and floor renewal works in the resident’s kitchen, were completed on 23 February 2022. Electrical works to rat damaged cables and a power socket in the kitchen, were completed on 25 February 2022.
The landlord provided this Service with several internal emails from February 2022, discussing the progress of the repairs. The last of these was sent on 24 February 2022. It said the kitchen works listed in the stage two complaint response had been completed. It stated the resident’s garden decking had been removed and the drainage system completely replaced. It advised the decking was due to be reinstated on 2 March 2022.
The landlord’s repairs log shows an electrician attended on 4 April 2022. The resident contacted this Service 28 April 2022. She explained that following the completion of theworks, she had been admitted to hospital for a two week period on 28 February 2022. She said that when she returned home in March, her washing machine was not working, and there was evidence of rats still in the property. She stated that this was confirmed in April when an electrical contractor had attended, “but was unable to do any work due to damage caused by rats”.
The landlord raised works to reinstate the resident’s garden decking on 7 July 2022. The resident contacted this Service on 8 July 2022. She advised the landlord wanted to attend the following day to restore her garden decking, but voiced her concern about this being done while rats were still accessing the property from the drain under the decking.
During the course of this investigation, the resident told this Service she had received no further contact from the landlord about the matter since July 2022. It is unclear what she had reported to the landlord, but she said her property was still affected by rodent issues. She said her garden remained too dangerous for her to access, as the decking had not been reinstated. She said she was still using a laundrette, as her washing machine remained inoperable.

Assessment and findings

Record keeping

Clear record keeping is a core function of repair, and wider landlord services. It allows evidence to be provided to the Ombudsman when requested. More importantly, clear record keeping is essential to enable landlords to monitor outstanding works and issues, and provide effective services to its residents. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records including,but not restricted to, resident details and reports, responses, attendances and actions.
This Service asked the landlord to provide repair logs and work orders, relevant to both the pest control and garden decking (drainage) at the resident’s property. As none were initially provided, this Service repeated the request during this investigation. At the same time, this Service highlighted to the landlord that the matter had begun on 11 July 2021, and so queried why the earliest evidence it had provided was the resident’s complaint email from 29 October 2021. The landlord replied and provided the repairs log and works orders. Its response explained that although the resident had said she first reported the matter in July 2021, it could find no information to suggest that this was the case. The repairs log the landlord provided shows the matter was first reported on 11 July 2021, with the first reference to a rodent issue being on 15 July 2021. It was not reasonable that the landlord was unaware of the information in its own evidence, and it would seem very likely this contributed to the many service failures detailed below.
This Service asked the landlord to provide records of the resident’s correspondence and telephone contacts, associated with the garden decking, or reporting pests in the property. This was requested again during the course of this investigation. The only correspondence the landlord provided was the resident’s complaint emails. No records of telephone contacts were provided at all. It was not reasonable that the landlord either could not, or would not, provide the requested details, which were essential to assessing this case.
The resident’s complaint stated it took numerous calls to the landlord, over the eight weeks after her initial report, before ‘pest control’ attended her property. She had separately told this Service that the first ‘pest control’ attendance was on 6 September 2021, when she was first advised that there was a serious rat infestation. It is not reasonable that the Ombudsman has been unable to corroborate or assess any of this due to the landlord’s failure to provide the relevant records.
The resident’s initial complaint to the landlord made clear that she was disabled and suffered with mobility issues. The landlord’s repair log makes various references to the resident having vulnerabilities and being a wheelchair user. With regard to vulnerabilities, the landlord’s repair policy states that it will update resident’s records accordingly and use this information in making repair priority decisions. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord stated its records showed the resident had no vulnerabilities.
The lack of contact or telephone records evidencing the resident’s, or her OT’s, reports of issues at the property is a significant concern, as is the landlord being unaware of when the matter was first reported. It has hampered the Ombudsman’s ability to assess the response or actions of the landlord, particularly prior to it receiving the resident’s complaint. It is reasonable to conclude that the failings in record keeping have played a significant part in the further service failings detailed below. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this constitutes maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation and associated repairs

The ‘record keeping’ failings detailed above have hampered the Ombudsman’s ability to assess the landlord’s handling of the matter. The lack of resident contact records has meant this is particularly the case for the first 18 week period following the resident’s initial report. There is also little information available from the stage one and stage two complaint responses letters, as the landlord failed to respond to almost all of the specific queries and substantive points the resident had raised.
Despite what the landlord told this Service, its repairs log confirms the leak was initially reported on 11 July 2021. It was appropriate that it treated this as an emergency and attended the same day. As the resident was vulnerable, and the water supply had to be isolated, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow this up proactively the next working day. Nevertheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to attend and restore the water supply on 15 July 2021, the same day the resident made contact.
The repair log also showed the first reference to pests (at that time thought to be mice) was on 15 July 2021. It showed the resident had reported the wall needed to be filled behind the kitchen sink, as mice were getting in and damaging her appliances. It noted the resident was vulnerable and a wheelchair user. In line with its repair policy for appointed repairs, the job had a target completion date of 12 August 2021. It was appropriate that the landlord attended the repair on 9 August 2021. However, it would also have been reasonable to increase the priority of the repair in line with its policy regarding disabled residents.
The resident’s complaint stated that, following the initial attendance, it took a further eight weeks of telephoning the landlord before ‘pest control’ attended. This tallies with the resident’s more recent information provided to this Service, that ‘pest control’ first attended on 6 September 2021. It also corresponds with the comments in her original complaint on 29 October 2021, that her washing machine had been left in the middle of her kitchen floor since that time. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this attendance, nor the resident’s calls chasing the landlord, and it contradicts the information provided by the landlord, which stated the first ‘pest control’ visit was 9 November 2021. In either case, this was a serious service failing, and was not in line with the timeframes stated in its own repairs policy or its approach to repairs for vulnerable residents. The landlord was aware at least as early as July 2021 that there was a potential pest problem but has been unable to demonstrate it attempted to address this until November 2021 which represented an excessive delay.
The resident’s original complaint referred to numerous ‘pest control’ attendances. She referenced pest control’s advice that the rats were gaining access to the property via the drains, and its recommendation that the landlord complete a drain survey. All of this was accurate and transpired over the course of November and December 2021, and yet these details were in the resident’s complaint made on 29 October 2021. This was over a week prior to when the landlord has claimed it was first aware of the issue and that pest control had first attended. This is again indicative of service failures associated with, and stemming from, poor record keeping.
The resident’s stage two complaint escalation request email was sent 15 December 2021. She repeated the question asking why it had taken eight weeks from her first report for ‘pest control’ to attend. She asked the further question of why it had then taken a further nine weeks for the landlord to respond to the ‘pest control’ drainage recommendations. This nine week period from the attendance on 6 September 2021 coincides with the attendance of the landlord’s ‘pest control’ and pest control contractor at the property on 9 November 2021. That being the case, it is unreasonable that the landlord again failed to meet the timeframes required by its policy.
Having issued its stage one complaint response on 8 November 2021, and carried out a full inspection on 9 November 2021, the records suggest the landlord did begin to act with appropriate urgency. Works were raised including the refitting of the resident’s washing machine, lifting of the garden decking to allow a drain survey, and electrical checks and remedial works. A quotation for the drainage works was also sought, and it was reasonable that all of this was completed within the timeframes allowed by its repairs policy.
The landlord’s pest control contractor re-inspected the resident’s property on 18 January 2022. As no rats had been caught, and the resident had advised she had heard none in the last week, it was reasonable for it to conclude its treatment was now finished.
The landlord’s repairs log shows the drainage works were raised on 2 December 2021, with a target completion date of 31 January 2022. It was therefore unreasonable that the works were not completed until 16 February 2022, particularly given the resident suggested the drains were the access point for rats as early as September 2021. However, the Ombudsman does acknowledge the extensive nature of the drainage works and the need to conclude the rat treatment first.
The remainder of the internal works advised in the landlord’s stage two complaint response, were raised and completed over January and February 2022. It was reasonable that these jobs were all done ahead of their target completion dates, as defined by the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord had also raised works on 3 March 2022 for the resident’s garden decking to be reinstated. Its repair log shows this was completed on 24 March 2022. However, as the resident has stated, and provided photographic evidence showing, the decking has not been reinstated, and the landlord raised this same work again 7 July 2022, it is reasonable to assume the repairs log entry is incorrect.
It was unavoidable that the resident was admitted to hospital on 28 February 2022, and did not return home until mid-March 2022. The subsequent events and situation she has described, has not been investigated as part of the landlord’s complaint process, and so does not form part of this assessment. However, it is covered by the Ombudsman’s orders below regarding outstanding rodent issues and decking.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the amount of chasing the resident has described herself as having to do, and the landlord’s failure to understand its own actions, or meet its timescales following its initial attendances in July 2021, until its pest control survey on 9 November 2021, constitutes maladministration in the landlord’s pest control and associated repairs handling.

Complaint response

The resident emailed her complaint to the landlord on 29 October 2021. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond at stage one within 10 working days, meaning the resident should have received the response on or by 12 November 2021. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord did not provide its stage one complaint response until 20 November 2021.
The resident’s complaint is summarised in paragraph ten. It stated that the leak was first reported on 11 July 2021, and that it took a further eight weeks of telephoning the landlord before anyone attended. The resident described the “horrendous” living conditions caused by the rats. She explained her disability, and the financial and mobility difficulties the matter was causing her. The lack of records provided by the landlord means this Service has been unable to corroborate many of these details. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that it was a serious failing that almost none of this was addressed, or even referred to, in the landlord’s stage one response letter. This also directly contravened its own policy detailed in paragraph five.
The resident replied to the stage one response letter on 8 December 2021. She expressed her dissatisfaction and stated, “not a single point I raised was addressed”. She requested her complaint be escalated to stage two. In line with its complaint policy, and assuming the landlord was closed for normal business for at least part of the week between Christmas and New Year, the stage two response letter should have been sent on or before 10 January 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to email the resident on 13 December 2021, and clarify the outcomes she was seeking from her stage two complaint.
The resident’s response was sent two days later and is summarised in paragraph 18. The resident specifically asked for explanations regarding various delays she said she had experienced following her initial report on 11 July 2021. She had said that as a result of the delays she would “be spending Christmas in a house that smells like a sewer, has a continuous leak from a pipe damaged by rats, has holes in the walls and needs to be rewired”. She also clearly set out the actions needed to resolve the complaint, and requested compensation including reimbursement of her costs. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not send its stage two response letter until 8 February 2022, which was at least 30 days after the timeframe stated in its policy.
The landlord’s stage two response bullet pointed the works orders it had raised. It stated that it had checked its records and its investigation had found it had completed work within its standard timescales, kept the resident informed, and acted within its policies and processes. It was unreasonable that the landlord’s stage two response offered no explanation as to how it had reached these conclusions, particularly given it did not offer any explanation, or even refer, to the resident’s questions regarding delays from July 2021. The response also failed to show any empathy towards, or even mention, the dire conditions the resident had described herself as living in. This was a serious failing and in direct contravention of its own policy detailed in paragraph five.
It is the view of the Ombudsman that the multiple failings described above, constitute maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The lack of vulnerability, call or contact records provided by the landlord, and its lack of awareness of when the matter began, and the actions it had taken, would have contributed significantly to the subsequent service failures, and the profoundly negative impact on the resident.
Despite the lack of records concerning the events that followed, there is no doubt the landlord was aware of the pest issue by 15 July 2021. The lack of records has meant it has not been possible for the Ombudsman to fully corroborate or assess the resident’s description of events that occurred from her original report, up to the landlord’s stage one response sent on 8 November 2021. Nevertheless, the subsequent scale of rodent damage and associated works, strongly suggests the resident’s living conditions would have been seriously impacted, and the landlord’s delayed response and actions were wholly inappropriate.
The resident’s complaint, escalation request, and reply to the landlord’s stage two response, clearly set out the events beginning from her initial report on 11 July 2021. They detailed the extremely negative impact it was having on her living conditions, mobility around the property, and her finances and overall wellbeing. They also clearly explained the resolutions she was seeking. The complaint did at least appear to have prompted the landlord to take action with appropriate urgency. However, its failure to respond to, or even acknowledge, any of the resident’s questions or substantive points, in particular regarding the period between July and November 2021, was a serious failure of service in direct breach of its own complaint policy. The absence of any empathy whatsoever expressed towards the resident’s description of the toll the matter was taking on her, particularly as a wheelchair user living alone, was also extremely concerning.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that:
1. a senior manager calls the resident to apologise for the identified service failings, and the failures of its complaint handling;
2. the landlord pays the resident £2,328 made up of:
  1. £500 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling;
  2. £1600 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its record keeping, pest control and associated repairs handling;
  3. £228 towards the laundrette costs incurred by the resident.
3. the landlord arranges a pest control survey of the resident’s home and provides the resident, and this Service, with a copy of its subsequent action plan;
4. the landlord assess whether the resident’s decking is suitable for reinstatement, and provides the resident and this Service with a copy of its subsequent action plan to either reinstate the decking, or complete alternative works that will allow the resident safe access to the garden.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

The landlord review the effectiveness of its complaint handling and record keeping, as well as its staff training requirements with regards to the same. It should create an action plan within six weeks of the date of this report to demonstrate how it will ensure that resident vulnerabilities are accurately recorded and lead to relevant priority being given to outstanding repairs.