Wandle Housing Association Limited (202217208)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217208

Wandle Housing Association Limited

6 March 2024

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:
   1. The landlord’s response to a request for windows to be replaced.
   2. The landlord’s handling of a defective bathroom floor.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the property.
3. The resident told the landlord in August 2021 that her windows had cracks and gaps in the frames. The landlord attended to inspect the windows in November 2021, confirming the windows were letting in water, but no repair took place.
4. In January 2022 the resident told the landlord that there was damage to her bathroom floor.
5. On 1 March 2022 the resident made a formal complaint about how long it was taking to repair the windows. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 March 2022 to discuss the complaint; however, it did not send a formal stage 1 response.
6. The landlord’s contractor attended on 29 April 2022 to produce a quote for the repairs to the bathroom floor. The landlord attended on 13 May 2022 to inspect the windows again. This inspection recommended new windows be installed.
7. Between 29 June 2022 and 21 July 2022, the resident sent 5 emails chasing updates on the repairs. These emails all had “Stage 2 complaint” as the subject. The landlord passed the matter to their complaint team on 22 July 2022.
8. The landlord sent a final response to the resident on 26 August 2022. The landlord said it would do a further inspection of the windows and bathroom floor and, if needed, put a new plan of action in place. It also said it would request updates from the planned works teams about when the windows were due to be replaced.
9. The resident contacted this service on 3 November 2022 to escalate her complaint. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s view that only some windows required replacement with others being suitable for repairs. The resident also was unhappy with the ongoing delays.

Assessment and findings

10. The records provided by the landlord to this service are limited in content. It is difficult to specifically determine when issues were reported, when actions took place, or what those actions were. Good record keeping is essential for a landlord to provide the best possible service to its residents, but also to protect its assets in terms of its housing stock.

Request for windows to be replaced

11. The first relevant entry in the landlord’s repair log had a due date of 30 August 2021. There is no date for when the issue was reported, but it is reasonable to expect that the due date would be set as the date the landlord expected the repair to be completed (as outlined in its repairs policy). This service has concluded that the windows are likely to have been reported to the landlord on or around 2 August 2021.
12. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord has a responsibility to maintain the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord’s repairs policy further clarifies it has responsibility for repairs to windows (including frames) and flooring it has fitted in bathrooms.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that, before April 2022, it would complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. After April 2022, this timescale was reduced to 21 days.
14. The landlord’s communications log shows it messaged the resident on 24 August 2021 and 15 September 2021 to say an operative was on the way. It has not provided any further information about what occurred during these appointments.
15. The works order linked to the repair shows that the landlord attended the property on 1 November 2021. Even if the required repairs had been completed on this visit, it would still have been significantly outside the landlord’s stated timescales.
16. The repair log has 5 further entries which mention the window issues with due dates between 2 November 2021 and 2 February 2022. The communications log records at least 3 of these appointments were cancelled. There has been no clear information provided to this service to explain what action, if any, took place for the 2 remaining jobs.
17. The resident’s complaint of 1 March 2022 said her windows had still not been fixed. The resident further said there was water leaking from the windows and the whole property was draughty.
18. There is no record of the landlord’s conversation with the resident on 11 March 2022. There is an entry on the repair log with a due date of 8 April 2022 requesting a further inspection of the windows. This was 28 days after 11 March 2022 and it would therefore be likely this entry was a result of the stage 1 complaint. However, it is not possible to confirm this as the landlord did not send a formal stage 1 response.
19. There is no record of whether the landlord attended on, or before, 8 April 2022. The final relevant entry on the repair log had a due date of 25 May 2022. The associated works order indicates the landlord attended on 13 May 2022 and confirmed that new windows were needed. It was further confirmed that black mould was forming in the cracks in the frames and where joins in the windows were opening up.
20. While the presence of mould may not necessarily require a landlord to change the priority of a repair, in this case, it should have highlighted that this issue had the potential to become more serious if left unresolved. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth is a potential hazard and therefore the landlord was required to consider whether the damp and mould amounted to a hazard and required remedying. There is no evidence it complied with this obligation, which was a failure.
21. There has been no evidence provided to this service that the landlord took any actions to progress the repair (including assessing the mould growth) between 13 May 2022 and its stage 2 response of 26 August 2022.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for not having sufficiently resolved the resident’s concerns during the first stage of the process. The landlord stated that it would need to inspect the windows again as the photographs it had were not very clear. The landlord did not apologise for the significant delay that had occurred since the windows were first reported or provide the resident with an explanation as to why it had been unable to make the repairs. The landlord did not make an offer of compensation.
23. In the Ombudsman’s view, the stage 2 response was insufficient. The landlord should have explained why its previous inspections had been inadequate. It should have given a clear rationale for why a further inspection was required before repairs could take place. It should also have provided an explanation for why it had not assessed the photographs earlier and taken appropriate remedial action if they were unclear.
24. The Ombudsman does not consider that a further inspection was a reasonable action. However, if the landlord felt a further inspection was required it should have done this while considering the stage 2 complaint. The landlord should have provided a time-specific plan for completing the outstanding repairs in its response.
25. The landlord should have also addressed the resident’s dissatisfaction with its level of communication. Not doing so meant it missed an opportunity to acknowledge the frustration caused or consider how it may have contributed to the delays.
26. Following the resident’s complaint to this service, the landlord has stated the repairs to the windows were completed, but that a post-inspection survey was still required. The resident disputes that any repair has taken place.
27. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to attend the property, assess (and agree with the resident) all outstanding repairs, and provide the resident with a time-specific plan outlining how it will complete these works.
28. In addition, the Ombudsman has ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £750. In line with this service’s remedies guidance, this is considered a reasonable figure to recognise the impact this matter has had on the resident and that it has been unresolved since August 2021.

Reports of a defective bathroom floor

29. There are only 2 records relating to the bathroom floor in the records supplied by the landlord. It is not possible to tell when the resident initially reported the issue. The resident states she told the landlord on 7 January 2022. The first relevant entry in the repair log had a due date of 8 April 2022. This would suggest it was created following the conversation that had taken place on 11 March 2022 when the landlord called the resident to discuss the complaint.
30. The HHSRS places a responsibility on the landlord to assess the potential risks of falls associated with baths or showers, as well as falls on any level surface. Damage to a bathroom floor would be likely to fall into both categories. The landlord should have assessed these risks when considering the repair. There is no evidence this has taken place.
31. The second entry in the repair log had a due date of 24 August 2022 and appears to be the quote for the repair. The landlord’s communication log states that on 27 July 2022 the resident cancelled the job, but there is no further detail about why. In any event, these dates are significantly outside the landlord’s stated repair timescales.
32. The landlord’s stage 2 response only refers to the bathroom floor briefly. It states that the resident had mentioned the floor needed to be checked and that it would do this when visiting to inspect the window.
33. The Ombudsman considers this to be insufficient. The landlord should have reviewed its records and explained that it had received a quote for the floor. The landlord should have been able to explain the reasons for the delay. This could have included explaining whether it had accepted the quote and, if so, when it planned to complete the work.
34. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that the floor has not been repaired. The resident has confirmed this.
35. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay an additional £750. This is considered a reasonable figure in light of the unexplained delays in repairing the bathroom floor and the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this ongoing matter.

Handling of the complaint

36. The landlord’s complaints policy states it has a 2 stage complaints process with responses due within ten working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If unable to keep to these timescales, it was required to explain to the resident the reason for the delay and extend by no more than a further ten working days.
37. The landlord did not provide a formal response to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process. This is not in line with its complaint policy. While it has told this service that it spoke to the resident to resolve the complaint, it has not provided any explanation as to why it did not provide a formal response.
38. Providing a formal response to a complaint is an important part of a user-focused process. It allows everyone to understand what has been considered during the complaint, including whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances, and, if not, what it would do to put things right. It also allows the resident to hold the landlord to account if it fails to undertake any actions it said it would do.
39. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires a complaint to be responded to in writing within specified time limits. This would allow residents to know what action they could take if they remained dissatisfied. The landlord failed to comply with the obligations on it in the Code.
40. The landlord later missed an opportunity to resolve the resident’s stage 2 complaint as early as it could have done. Any email with a subject line indicating a possible complaint should have triggered the landlord’s complaint procedure. The landlord could then have spoken to the resident promptly to identify which parts of her email related to the previous stage 1 complaint, which parts may have been new complaints, and which parts may have been service requests.
41. This failure also prevented the landlord from being able to meet the timescales set out in its policy. There were 43 working days between the resident’s first “stage 2 complaint” email and the landlord’s stage 2 response. This was not appropriate and outside the timescales set out in the Code.
42. The landlord sent an acknowledgement of the stage 2 escalation to the resident on 3 August 2022. This was 26 working days after the resident’s email. The acknowledgement advised that the landlord would respond within 20 working days. This was not in line with the complaint policy as 20 working days had already passed. The landlord should have explained the reasons for the delay and prioritised providing a stage 2 response. In the Ombudsman’s view, unless there were clear reasons it could not have done so, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided its response within the 10 working days as set out in its policy for extending a response deadline.
43. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not explain why it had not sent the resident a formal stage 1 response or explain the delays in handling the stage 2 complaint. The landlord did not apologise for either failing. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to demonstrate that it had a customer-focused approach and wished to repair its relationship with the resident.
44. The landlord has not offered any compensation in relation to its complaint handling. In the Ombudsman’s view, this is unreasonable. The failings detailed above should have been considered by the landlord. They will have exacerbated and added to the distress and frustration already felt by the resident over the handling of the reported repair issues.
45. The Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay an additional £200 for the further distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for their windows to be replaced.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a defective bathroom floor.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

49. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report. This written apology must be from someone in the senior management team.
    2. Arrange for a surveyor or engineer to attend the resident’s home and inspect the windows and the flooring and produce a report.
       1. The survey report must set out what, if any, works are outstanding in the property to the windows and the bathroom flooring.
       2. It must include date-stamped photographs.
       3. A timescale for those works to be completed.
       4. The landlord must provide a copy of the survey to the resident and this service within 28 days of the date of this determination.
       5. The landlord must then use its best endeavours to ensure that all identified works are carried out within 28 days of the date of the inspection. The landlord must create and maintain records to demonstrate to the Ombudsman what endeavours it has taken to have the works completed.
    3. Arrange a post-completion inspection once all the works have been completed. This must include photographic evidence of the completed works.
    4. Pay the resident compensation of £1700 which is comprised of:
       1. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings and delays in having the windows replaced.
       2. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the defective bathroom floor.
       3. £200 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused by the delays.
    5. Provide this service with evidence that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendations

50. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord review its record-keeping procedures with a particular emphasis on repair logs and records. It should consider its knowledge and information management and satisfy itself that it has sufficient processes in place to assist with effective repairs and complaint handling.
51. The landlord should review its complaint-handling approaches and consider the Ombudsman’s Code (Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The landlord should take note of the Complaint Handling Code 2024 and consider what steps it needs to take to ensure compliance when the new Code (2024) becomes statutory on 1 April 2024.