Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202217802)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217802

Wandle Housing Association Limited

18 April 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of mould in the communal hallway.
    2. Cyclical decoration works.
    3. The associated complaint handling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident owns and occupies the property, which is a flat, under a shared ownership agreement with the landlord.
  2. In November 2021 the resident reported mould on the wall in the communal area to the landlord. After the resident chased up the issue in early 2022, the landlord raised an order for the issue to be investigated and resolved.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 19 October 2022 about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould within the building’s communal hallway. She stated that it had been almost a year since she had first reported the issue and that a mould wash had not been carried out, despite a recommendation from the landlord’s surveyor for this work to be undertaken. The resident stated that she was asthmatic and therefore raised concerns about living with damp and mould. She also complained that the communal areas had not been decorated since 2006 when residents had initially moved into the building.
  4. The stage 1 response was issued on 2 November 2022. The landlord found that it had acted within its policies and processes when dealing with the reports of damp and mould. It stated that a damp and mould specialist had carried out an inspection in May 2022 which identified that the issue was caused by condensation trapped within the lobby area. The landlord stated that the report identified that no further works were required as the area had recently been mould washed and mould painted which had resolved the issue. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s recent reports that the mould had returned and confirmed that an appointment had been scheduled for 21 November 2022 to mould wash and paint the affected areas.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 November 2022 and stated that compensation should be paid due to the time take to resolve the issue, factual inaccuracies by the landlord, and in recognition of the time she had spent chasing the landlord about the matter. The resident disputed that a mould wash had taken place previously, and that white emulsion had instead been painted over the area. She said that this had been confirmed by the independent surveyor.
  6. The stage 2 response was issued on 10 February 2023. The landlord concluded that compensation was not applicable for its handling of the mould issue. However, it offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the delay in providing the stage 2 response.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 23 February 2023. She stated that the landlord had not addressed the length of time taken to address the mould issue, and again said that a mould wash had not been completed in May 2022. The resident stated that as a resolution to her complaint, the landlord should offer a compensation amount that took into account the delays, time incurred by the resident in chasing the landlord, missed appointments, and the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident discussed the impact of the mould on her health and stated that the mould had spread to the internal wall in her property. More recently, the resident confirmed that the issue in the communal hallway had been resolved.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments about the effect damp and mould had on her health and wellbeing. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction by the landlord and any specific damage to the resident’s health in this case. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman is able to consider any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

Handling of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that appointed repairs are those that do not qualify as an emergency and are dealt with by appointment. The policy states that such repairs will be completed within 28 days. The landlord’s damp and mould handbook states that when a damp and mould issue is reported, a repairs operative will inspect the issue, carry out a mould wash and check the ventilation in the area. The handbook states that once repairs have been completed, the landlord will visit to check whether the damp and mould issue has been resolved.
  2. The evidence indicates that the resident initially reported mould in the communal hallway on 4 November 2021. The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 January 2022 to ask for an update and stated that the mould issue was getting worse. The landlord responded and advised that a repairs job had been raised and an appointment was scheduled for 12 January 2022.
  3. There is no evidence to reflect that the landlord took any action to address the issue after the resident made the initial report in November 2021. Landlords should respond proactively when such reports are made and arrange repairs appointments in line with the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. It is unreasonable that a repairs job was only raised after the resident raised the issue again in January 2022. There was therefore an unreasonable delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports, and the landlord did not act in line with its policy. This amounts to a failing by the landlord. The landlord has not provided any repairs notes to reflect the 12 January 2022 appointment, and there is therefore no evidence that this appointment took place. This indicates a further failing.
  4. The landlord’s repairs records indicate that the resident reported the issue again in May 2022. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that its damp and mould surveyor and an independent damp and mould specialist had visited the property in May 2022. The landlord stated that the damp and mould specialist completed a report which identified that the mould was caused by condensation trapped within the lobby area. It said that the report concluded that no further works were necessary as the area had recently been mould washed and mould painted.
  5. It is noted that when the resident raised her complaint, she stated that the landlord’s surveyor had also inspected the issue in June or July 2022 and had advised that the area should be mould washed and mould painted.
  6. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for specialist inspections to take place, but this should have happened sooner, after the initial November 2021 report. Further, it has not provided any repairs records to reflect the outcome of the damp and mould inspections, or the independent report that it states was completed. Therefore, its statement that the mould was caused by condensation and no further works were needed is not supported by evidence. The landlord’s record keeping has been addressed below.
  7. The landlord has also not provided repairs records to support its position that a mould wash had been carried out in May 2022. Further, there are no records of a visit that took place in June or July 2022. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine whether a mould wash was completed, or whether the area was painted with emulsion as the resident suggests. However, the landlord ought to have maintained clear records of repairs that took place, and responded to the resident’s comments about what work was undertaken.
  8. The resident raised her complaint on 19 October 2022. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that a further mould wash had been scheduled for 21 November 2022. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord stated that an appointment had taken place on 16 November 2022 to complete a mould wash. However, in an email to the landlord dated 30 November 2022, the resident stated that operatives had not attended the property on 16 or 21 November 2022. No repairs records have been provided to the Ombudsman to indicate a mould wash took place during November 2022, and the resident’s expectations were therefore not met in terms of the actions following the stage 1 response.
  9. The repairs records indicate that a job was raised on 30 November 2022 for a mould wash and paint of the affected area. An inspection took place on 6 December 2022 and an appointment was scheduled for 10 December 2022 for a mould wash to be carried out. The repairs records reflect that this work was completed. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that a post inspection took place on 27 January 2023 and identified that no further works were required. The resident has confirmed that the mould wash resolved the issue.
  10. The evidence indicates that there were failings by the landlord regarding its handling of the reports of damp and mould. It is unreasonable that no action was taken to respond to the mould issue until approximately 6 months after the resident had initially reported it in November 2021. The landlord did not act in accordance with the timeframes set out within its repairs policy.
  11. Due to the absence of repairs records from May 2022, it is difficult to determine whether the landlord took reasonable steps to address the issue at this stage. However, it is noted that there were further delays in addressing the matter after the resident raised her complaint in October 2022, as previously scheduled repairs appointments did not take place. The failings identified amount to maladministration by the landlord.
  12. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  13. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the delays in resolving the mould issue. She incurred time and trouble in reporting the matter to the landlord and in pursuing her complaint. Further distress was caused as the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns about her health.
  14. To ‘put things right’, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the impact of the failures associated with addressing the damp and mould reports. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which has adversely affected the resident.
  15. The landlord should also take steps to learn from the complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in responding to the resident’s report of damp and mould. An order has been made below for the landlord to conduct a review and identify learning to ensure such repairs are dealt with in line with its repairs timeframes.

Cyclical decoration

  1. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that the resident’s block would likely be on the programme of cyclical decoration works in 2024. When referring the complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2023, the resident stated that the landlord’s comments were in direct contradiction to correspondence she had received about a Section 20 notice that was to be issued for communal works. Emails have been provided to reflect communication between the landlord and the resident during December 2022 and January 2023 about redecoration works that were due to progress.
  2. The resident raised that the landlord had provided her with incorrect information regarding timescales for cyclical work, which indicates a lack of consistency between departments.
  3. It appears that the information provided in the stage 2 response about when the redecoration works would take place was inaccurate, and that steps had already been taken to progress the work. While this was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord, no failing has been identified as the resident confirmed that the redecoration of the communal areas has now been completed. However, the landlord should endeavour to provide accurate and consistent communication to residents about such matters.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling procedure states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It states that if further time is required, these timeframes may be extended by no more than 10 working days. The procedure also states that stage 1 complaints will usually be dealt with by a member of the team involved in the initial problem.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 19 October 2022 and the stage 1 response was issued on 2 November 2022. As such, the landlord responded within the required timescales at stage 1.
  3. The resident raised that the stage 1 complaint handler did not contact her when dealing with the complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (2022 version) states that a complaint must be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt. The Code says that when acknowledging the complaint, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 October 2022, which was slightly outside of the 5-day timeframe. Further, it did not set out any details of the complaint or the resolution sought. While there is no obligation for the stage 1 handler to contact the resident, the resident’s dissatisfaction with the level of contact could have been avoided had the landlord acknowledged the complaint in accordance with the Code.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 November 2022 and the stage 2 response is dated 10 February 2022. There was therefore a delay of approximately 73 days in excess of the 20-day timeframe. The evidence reflects that the resident chased the landlord on 3 and 20 January 2023 for a response. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord gave the resident any updates regarding when the stage 2 response would be provided.
  6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 4 January 2024 to raise that she had not received the stage 2 response. The Ombudsman received the stage 2 response from the landlord and forwarded this to the resident on 23 February 2023. The resident stated that the landlord had not sent the stage 2 response directly to her prior to this.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing the stage 2 response and offered the resident £50 compensation. However, it did not acknowledge its poor communication with the resident about the delays. There also appears to have been a further failing in that the stage 2 response was not sent directly to the resident. As such, the amount of compensation offered is insufficient to remedy the failings identified.
  8. The resident incurred time and trouble chasing both the landlord and the Ombudsman for the delayed stage 2 response. An order has been made below for an additional £50 compensation to be paid to the resident in recognition of the failings identified.
  9. The landlord did not identify any learning as a result of the complaint outcome. It did not properly explain why such a delay had occurred or how it would avoid this from happening again. An order has been made below for the landlord to conduct a review and identify and implement any relevant learning.

Record keeping

  1. Landlords are responsible for maintaining a clear audit trail of events and providing all relevant evidence to the Ombudsman. The landlord has not provided evidence in relation to the damp and mould inspections or the repairs appointment that took place in May 2022. It is unclear whether this is because these records were not kept, or because the landlord has been unable to locate them. This amounts to a failing by the landlord in its record keeping.
  2. The absence of adequate records has therefore impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, which has adversely affected the resident. Orders have been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £50 in recognition of this, and to for the landlord to conduct a review of its record keeping processes.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of mould in the communal hallway.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to its handling of cyclical decoration works.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident a total of £300 compensation, comprised as follows:
    1. £150 for its handling of the reports of mould,
    2. £100 for complaint handling, inclusive of £50 offered at stage 2,
    3. £50 for record keeping.
  2. The landlord should conduct a review of its handling of the resident’s reports of mould and determine the cause of the delays in addressing this, and whether any measures are needed to ensure such reports are handled in a timely manner in the future. The outcome of this review should be provided to the Ombudsman.
  3. The landlord should review its handling of the complaint to determine the reasons for the delays and identify any measures that can be put in place to ensure complaint responses are provided in line with stipulated timescales, and to ensure that it communicates with residents about potential delays. The outcome of this review should be provided to the Ombudsman.
  4. The landlord should review its current record keeping practices against this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information, which sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords. It should write to this Service with the outcome of the review, and details of any actions that it has/will take in relation to its record keeping practices to ensure that these are in line with the recommendations in the spotlight report.
  5. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of this report.