Wandle Housing Association Limited (202313860)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313860

Wandle Housing Association Limited

4 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The cleaning and repairs in the common areas of the resident’s building.
2. Reports about anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. The resident’s request for details about their service charges.
4. Requests about how it meets its obligations to test electrical, gas, and fire safety equipment.
5. Actions resulting from a steering group meeting held in October 2022.
6. The associated complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the third floor. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord is not the freeholder of the building. The landlord is the leaseholder of several flats (including the resident’s) as well as the common areas servicing the flats. The landlord uses a managing agent to manage the common areas.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 31 March 2023. They said the landlord had not acknowledged or responded to queries they had raised over the previous 1-2 years and had not adequately addressed their issues. They stated the following matters were still outstanding:
1. Concerns about the frequency and standard of the cleaning to the common areas.
2. Whether all the CCTV cameras were operating. The resident stated the landlord had told them in October or November 2022 that one camera was not working but would be repaired soon. They had not had any further update.
3. Updates on what actions the landlord had taken following reports the resident had made about ASB. The reports included allegations of drug use and fly tipping by other tenants in the building, as well as non-tenants gaining access to the common areas.
4. Confirmation that the landlord was carrying out the required health and safety testing for electrical, gas, and fire safety.
5. Not receiving the services they were paying for. They asked the landlord to provide them with a breakdown of what was included within their service charge and to review the overall cost. They also asked the landlord for information about how it ensured it was getting ‘value for money’ from the managing agent.
6. There had been no update about the outcome of actions agreed at a steering group meeting between the landlord and residents in October 2022.
On 28 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
1. It had spoken to the resident on 12 April 2023 and that the outstanding issues were a lack of cleaning and uncompleted repairs in the common areas. The resident said they had raised these issues several times previously, but the landlord had taken no action.
2. It had apologised to the resident for the lack of contact. It said this had been caused by a significant change in staffing levels which had temporarily slowed its service delivery.
3. It told the resident a new neighbourhood officer would be starting soon and they would focus on the resident’s concerns. The new officer would contact the resident in the coming week to arrange a visit to the building.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the process on 1 May 2023. They said they considered the stage 1 response to be inadequate and wanted all of their complaint addressing. They confirmed they had spoken to the landlord about their stage 1 complaint and had made it clear they wanted a meaningful investigation of the issues they had raised.
On 15 June 2023 the landlord issued its final response. It said:
1. It agreed it had not fully investigated the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and had not provided an outcome.
2. The managing agent was responsible for repairs and cleaning in the common areas. It accepted it had missed opportunities to report the resident’s concerns to the managing agent.
3. It offered £40 in compensation. This was made up of:
  1. £30 for the failure to fully investigate at stage 1.
  2. £10 for delays in reporting the resident’s concerns to the managing agent.

Events after the end of the complaints procedure

This service contacted the landlord on 19 July 2024 to request any further evidence or information it held about the following complaints the resident had made:
1. Ongoing issues with ASB, including non-residents entering the building, fly-tipping, drug use and nuisance behaviour in common areas.
2. No updates from the landlord following a steering group meeting in October 2022.
3. No response to requests for information about what items were included within their service charge and how the landlord determined it was getting ‘value for money’ from its managing agent.
4. No response to concerns that the landlord was not completing appropriate health and safety checks of gas and electrical installations, as well as checks of fire safety equipment.
The landlord responded on 23 July 2024 to agree that the resident had included the above matters in their stage 1 complaint email, but that it was unclear why it had not considered them during the complaints process. It advised it had not sent any further complaint responses to the resident and it therefore appeared it had not addressed the matters.
The landlord asked for further time to allow it to consult with internal teams and gather any other relevant information. We granted this request and asked the landlord to provide any further information or let this service know it required additional time, by 30 July 2024. We have had no further contact from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman can decide a landlord’s complaints procedure has been exhausted and allow a complaint to be treated as duly made where, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there have been repeated failures in the handling of a complaint.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that:
1. The resident had made formal complaints about all the matters set out in paragraph 5.a to 5.f.
2. The landlord had the opportunity and a reasonable period of time to respond to these complaints.
3. The landlord failed to respond to the complaints set out at paragraph 5.c to 5.f at either stage of its complaint procedure.
On this basis, the Ombudsman has decided the landlord’s complaint procedure has been exhausted and we will accordingly investigate all the complaints detailed above.

The landlord’s handling of cleaning and repairs in the common areas of the building

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will take reasonable care to maintain the common areas.
The resident’s complaint makes it clear they were unhappy with the frequency and standard of the cleaning, as well as the length of time it was taking to repair the CCTV. The resident has provided this service with evidence that they had been raising these concerns prior to their formal complaint.
The landlord in this case was not the freeholder of the building overall. It was the leaseholder over the property and parts of the building the resident was complaining about. While a landlord is entitled to appoint a managing agent to manage a property on its behalf, it remains responsible for ensuring it meets its contractual and legal obligations. It was therefore not appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident that the managing agent was responsible for repairs and cleaning in the common areas. The landlord was responsible for ensuring its leased areas were in a fair and proper condition.
The Ombudsman published a spotlight report in March 2022 about landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents. This set out several recommendations for landlords which included:
1. Landlords should have, or actively seek, clear service level agreements with managing agents and/or freeholders. Landlords should review the agreements to clarify roles and responsibilities for buildings where the landlord itself is a leaseholder. There should be an effective mechanism to clearly and accurately communicate this to residents, staff, and contractors.
2. Landlords should review their operational response to service or repair requests to ensure they are effective, including maintaining accurate and robust records.
3. Landlords should ensure processes for responding to service issues include the development and use of clear action plans, and that they effectively monitor performance against those plans.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that:
1. It had in place, or had taken steps to put in place, clear service level agreements and/or processes to monitor the level of service the managing agent was providing.
2. It had provided any information to the resident about its service level agreements or clarification of what it was responsible for and what the freeholder was responsible for.
3. It had kept clear records to demonstrate what actions it had taken to ensure that the common areas were cleaned or repairs completed in a reasonable period.
4. Where the resident had raised concerns, it had addressed these or considered whether it was necessary to take action against the managing agent.
Having considered the landlord’s lease, the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord may not have been responsible for repairs to the CCTV system within the building. However, it should be noted that where a freeholder is responsible for a repair, the landlord is still expected to be able to demonstrate it has taken proactive steps to ensure the repair is completed in a reasonable time. This should include the landlord deciding whether it would be appropriate to get legal advice about whether it can do the repairs itself or take formal action against the freeholder. There is no evidence that the landlord had done this.
There is insufficient evidence in this case for the Ombudsman to be able to conclude the landlord took reasonable care to maintain the common areas. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s opinion, having considered all the evidence, that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports relating to the common areas of the resident’s building.
The landlord offered £10 compensation for delays in raising the resident’s concerns with the managing agent. This does not appropriately recognise or address the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord notified the resident in February 2024 that the CCTV system had been repaired and was fully operational.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

The resident has provided evidence showing they had made reports of ASB to the landlord. The landlord has not provided any evidence to demonstrate what actions, if any, it took in response to any of the resident’s reports.
Due to the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the landlord acted in line with best practice or its own ASB policies. The Ombudsman therefore finds there was maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for details about their service charges

The resident stated in their complaint that they had made several requests for information relating to their service charges but that the landlord had not responded. The landlord has not provided any evidence which disputes the resident’s claim or demonstrates how it responded to the resident’s requests.
The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord did provide the resident with a breakdown of the service charges in September 2023. However, this was approximately 3 months after the landlord had issued its final complaint response. The evidence indicates the landlord provided this breakdown because of further contact from the resident, rather than as an outcome to the resident’s complaint.
Due to the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the landlord acted reasonably in its handling of the resident’s request for details about their service charges. The Ombudsman therefore finds there was maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of requests about how it meets its obligations to test electrical, gas, and fire safety equipment

The resident stated in their complaint that they had asked the landlord about when it carried out health and safety testing but that the landlord had not responded. The landlord has not provided any evidence which disputes the resident’s claim or demonstrates how it responded to the resident’s requests.
Due to the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the landlord acted reasonably in its handling of requests about how it meets its obligations to test electrical, gas, and fire safety equipment. The Ombudsman therefore finds there was maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of actions resulting from a steering group meeting held in October 2022

The resident has provided evidence that the landlord held a steering group meeting with the residents of the building in October 2022. In their complaint the resident stated the landlord should have a list of actions from that meeting. They said they had not had any updates from the landlord about whether it had completed any actions.
The landlord has not provided any evidence about the October 2022 meeting, including whether there were actions it had agreed to take, what steps it had taken to complete any agreed actions, and/or if it had provided updates to residents.
Due to the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the landlord acted reasonably in its handling of actions resulting from a steering group meeting held in October 2022. The Ombudsman therefore finds there was maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord took 20 working days to issue its stage 1 response and 31 working days to issue its final response. Even allowing for 5 working days to acknowledge receipt, these timescales were not in line with its complaint policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the ‘Code’) and were not appropriate.
The Code states that landlords should respond to all parts of a resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged at stage 2 that it had not fully investigated the resident’s complaint at stage 1. However, it then did not investigate the missing areas or provide an outcome. This was not appropriate.
As set out at paragraphs 9 to 11, this service asked the landlord to provide further information about its complaint handling. It acknowledged it had not responded to all of the resident’s complaints. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord did not, after asking for further time to consult internally, provide any further response to this service or let us know it required additional time. This was not acceptable.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord offered £30 compensation in recognition that its failure to fully respond at stage 1 had led the resident to escalate their complaint to stage 2. However, as the landlord did not then fix this failure or address the delays in providing responses, the Ombudsman does not consider the offered sum was appropriate.

The landlord’s record–keeping

The Ombudsman considers the matters within this report are evidence of inadequate record keeping by the landlord. The landlord’s record keeping has affected the Ombudsman’s ability to fully understand what action the landlord has taken to resolve the resident’s concerns.
Proper record keeping is vital for landlords to be able to show that they have complied with their legal and regulator obligations. Without proper records landlords can be in a vulnerable position where they can regularly be found responsible for fault.
We have spoken to the resident who explained their primary concern when making their complaint was the landlord’s refusal and/or inability to provide clear, detailed responses to their queries. Appropriate record keeping and knowledge management by the landlord may have allowed it to more effectively respond to the resident which may have then prevented the need for a formal complaint.
Based on this, and the evidence in this case (as set out above), the Ombudsman finds the landlord responsible for severe maladministration in its record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of cleaning and repairs in the common areas of the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for details about their service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests about how it meets its obligations to test electrical, gas, and fire safety equipment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of actions resulting from a steering group meeting held in October 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord is responsible for severe maladministration in its record keeping.

Orders

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 the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1300 which is comprised of:
  1. £300 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle reports relating to cleaning and repairs in the common areas of the resident’s building.
  2. £400 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately handle reports of ASB.
  3. £100 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately handle the resident’s request for details about their service charges.
  4. £100 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately handle requests about how it meets its obligations to test electrical, gas, and fire safety equipment.
  5. £50 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately handle actions resulting from a steering group meeting held in October 2022.
  6. £350 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.

Share the cleaning schedule for the block with the residents of the block.
Provide the resident with:
1. an update to any actions agreed following the October 2022 steering group meeting.
2. details of how it completes relevant health and safety checks (including gas, electrical, and fire safety) in accordance with legal requirements.
3. An up-to-date breakdown of what items are included in the resident’s service charge.

If the landlord has already provided any of the above information it must provide this service with evidence of this. This should include copies of the information that it provided and evidence of the date it gave the information to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Clarify to the resident (and all its residents in the block) in writing, what service level agreements it has with the managing agent/freeholder in relation to concerns about ASB, repairs, and the standard of cleaning to the block. The landlord must provide a copy to this service. This should include information such as:
  1. The expectations on the managing agent to report ASB incidents to the landlord. Including how soon after being aware of an ASB incident the managing agent has to inform the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s responsibilities to address concerns about the condition of the block. This should cover both repairs and the standard of cleaning. It should also set out what action(s) the residents can expect the landlord to take after they have reported any concerns.