Wandle Housing Association Limited (202321331)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321331

Wandle Housing Association Limited

17 January 2025

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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks and outstanding communal repairs.
2. Complaint.
This report has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 2 bedroom, second floor flat in a block, which she has occupied since July 2011. The landlord’s records show that she has vulnerabilities relating to her mental health.
On 29 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report 2 leaks from the guttering and one from the ceiling of a communal alleyway. She stated that, when it rained, water poured onto her satellite dish and the floor, and was “very noisy”. The landlord responded on 9 October 2022 to say it had “urgently” booked a repair and would shortly “assign the appointment”. On 7 November 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to chase up the outstanding repair. She stated that it had been “well over a month” since she had reported the leaks and they had not been fixed.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 17 November 2022. She said that since the landlord acknowledged her reports of leaks on 9 October 2022, she had not received any further correspondence. She added that the noise was disruptive. The landlord responded on 19 November 2022 to say it had carried out a repair to the guttering on 14 October 2022 and asked her to confirm if the leaks were still present. The resident wrote back on 21 November 2022 to say that there was still a leak coming from the gutter.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 25 November 2022. It also informed the resident on 1 December 2022 that it had raised another job to attend to the guttering. On 7 December 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it:
1. Had contacted its roofing contractor and asked that the repair to the gutter was “booked in as a priority”.
2. Was sorry it did not send her any updates.
3. Upheld her complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
4. Asked her to send photos of the leak in the communal alleyway and said it would raise a repair immediately “on receipt of the information”.
On 13 and 23 December 2022, the resident chased the outstanding works to the guttering and alleyway ceiling. On 8 March 2023 she wrote to the landlord to raise a new complaint about the ongoing leaks, believing it was too late to escalate her previous one. She stated that the landlord had still not repaired the gutter and water was dripping from the alleyway ceiling. On 12 April 2023, the landlord confirmed that it would treat the matter as an escalation request going forward.
On 17 April 2023, a roofing contractor attended the site and recommended works to repair and clear the gutters. The landlord attended the following day, on 18 April 2023 to carry out an inspection of the alleyway ceiling but could not find any leaks. The roofing contractor returned on 19 May 2023 to repair “several sections of guttering” and clear the debris so water could “flow freely”.
Between June 2023 and January 2024, the resident continued to chase up the repairs she had reported. During a visit on 5 September 2023 the landlord told her that the gutter was repaired on 19 May 2023 and, when it had inspected the alleyway on 18 April 2023 it could not locate a leak. She sent it videos on the same day to show the leaks had not been resolved. On 14 October 2023, she contacted the landlord to say that the leaks she had reported the previous year had still “not been inspected or repaired”.
On 2 February 2024, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. In its covering email it stated that it had re-formatted the response it had sent her in June 2023, which it had attached. It apologised that it had not presented it to her in the correct format. From the evidence, it is not clear on what day in June 2023 it had originally sent the correspondence. It is also unclear what format it had been sent in. Nevertheless, in its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it:
1. Had made several attempts to contact her via telephone to discuss her outstanding concerns. Unfortunately, it had not initially been clear that she was unable to communicate via telephone, which was the reason for the delay in its communication.
2. Sincerely apologised for this and had asked its neighbourhood team to amend her details on its system to show that email was her preferred method of communication.
3. Had carried out repairs to the guttering and inspected the alleyway ceiling, and asked her to confirm whether there were still any leaks present.
4. Was sorry it had not “sufficiently” resolved her concerns during the first stage of its complaint process.
The resident approached the Ombudsman on 1 May 2024. She stated that:
1. The repairs she had reported were still outstanding and the landlord had taken “no action” to resolve them.
2. She had made “countless efforts” to contact the landlord to chase up the works, “including specifying the location of the leaks”.
3. The ceiling in the alleyway had “not been touched at all”, which was “evident from the deterioration of the ceiling panels”.
4. The guttering was “still broken”, which was “evident from the amount of water entering” her property when it rained.
5. The landlord had still not implemented the reasonable adjustment she had “continually requested” and she was still unable to communicate with it via email.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states it would carry out appointed repairs at the earliest, mutually convenient time. Its service standard is to complete these within 28 days. Where is it agreed that it should treat a repair as “urgent”, it will complete the work within 7 days. It completes major works within 90 calendar days unless agreed with the resident or if they form part of a large scale programme.
The same policy provides a number of key elements of its repair procedures. These include:
1. Prompt, correct and accurate diagnosis of repair faults with work specified on orders, wherever possible.
2. Communicating effectively where complex jobs are likely to take more time to ensure expectations are effectively managed. and that residents understand the timeframes around their repairs.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy stated that it will responds to a stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of it being acknowledged. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Where it has to extend a response beyond a further 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 for stage 2, it will agree this with the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about some additional outstanding repairs in her property. As these issues did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that the Service can investigate at this stage. In fairness to both parties, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. As such, if the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response to these repairs, she may wish to raise a new complaint. If the resident remains unhappy after concluding the landlord’s complaints procedure, she may then approach the Ombudsman.

Reports of leaks and outstanding communal repairs

The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident has experienced inconvenience over a lengthy period of time, while reporting leaks in the communal areas. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This assessment will focus on whether it acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
In line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord will maintain the structure and outside of the property. This includes drains, gutters, external pipes, the roof and common areas. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect this, such as volume and complexity of required work, or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The evidence shows that the landlord initially attended the property to repair the guttering on 14 October 2022. This was 16 days after the resident had first reported the leaks. This was within its timescale of 28 days for completing appointed repairs, which is in line with its repairs and maintenance policy.
It is also noted that, following its attendance on 14 October 2022, there is no indication the landlord had contacted the resident to let her know it had carried out the repair. It is noted that the repair was located in a communal area. However, given she had reported the issue, it would have been reasonable to confirm that it had been resolved. The decision not to do so demonstrates a lack of customer focus and poor communication.
Following the repair in October 2022, the resident reported that there was still a leak coming from the guttering and that the intermittent leak from the alleyway was ongoing. There is no evidence the landlord carried out a post-inspection to check that the work completed to the guttering had been effective. Had it done so, it could have satisfied itself that the work its contractor carried out had been effective. It could then have reasonably followed up on any continuing issues directly with its contractor to ensure they were appropriately resolved. The landlord’s failure to post-inspect was a missed opportunity.
Following her report of ongoing leaks on 21 November 2022, it was not until 17 April 2023, nearly 5 months later, that the roofing contractor attended to inspect the guttering. The reason for the delay is unclear from the evidence that has been provided. The landlord then returned to complete recommended works on 19 May 2023, which represents a further delay of 33 days. Again, the reason for the delay is unclear. However, this was excessively outside its timescale for completing appointed repairs, and a significant departure from the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. Given the landlord had committed in its stage 1 response to book the repair “as a priority”, this demonstrates a further failure to manage the resident’s expectations.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s communication was consistently poor. There is no indication it made reasonable efforts to provide the resident with regular progress updates. She had to continually prompt it for up-to-date information. The records show she made significant efforts to chase the landlord for information, which could reasonably have been avoided if the landlord had adopted a customer focussed approach.
The evidence shows that the first time the landlord attended to inspect for a leak in the communal alleyway was 18 April 2023. This was over 6 months after the resident’s initial report and after she had chased the matter several times during that period. In its stage 1 response, the landlord asked the resident to send photographs of the leak before it would attend. When residents report repairs, it is reasonable for landlords to ask them for relevant information in order to identify the location and nature of issue. It can also help in determining which trade would be best placed to attend in the first instance. However, the landlord advised the resident it would visit once it received photographs of the damage. It is acknowledged that photographs would have been helpful. However, it is unclear why the landlord could not inspect the communal area based on the information the resident had provided. It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial report and then asked for photographs to be provided before making an attempt to attend. This was a failing.
It is unclear why the landlord took so long to inspect the alleyway ceiling. There is nothing to show it had monitored this repair or that there was any system in place to alert the landlord that it was outstanding. Furthermore, there is no evidence it had let the resident know it had inspected the site until it issued its stage 2 response. In its response, it stated that its operatives were unable to find a leak. It has not provided any kind of inspection report, or evidence of any tests it had completed to eliminate the possibility of water ingress. The landlord could have agreed to meet with the resident and carry out an inspection with her so she could highlight the problematic areas.
The resident had reported the leak as being intermittent and that it occurred when it rained. It is unclear what the weather was like when operatives attended. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have visited during or immediately after wet weather. This would have enabled it to properly satisfy itself whether there was a leak. The resident had mentioned there was damage to the ceiling. The records suggest she had also provided photographic evidence. Despite this, the landlord was unable to demonstrate it had properly assessed the damage. The landlord’s response that it simply could not identify a leak would therefore likely have come across as dismissive.
The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving a leak is not always straightforward and can be a case of ruling out causes until it identifies the source of the leak. In some cases, where the cause of a leak is not immediately apparent, it is reasonable for it to make several visits to identify and resolve. Where a process of elimination is required, we would expect to see an action plan developed by the landlord. This should be overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source is identified at the earliest opportunity, and a prompt remedy is then implemented.
The landlord is unable to show that it had taken appropriate and timely action to find the cause of the leak. The Ombudsman will therefore order that it carries out a thorough inspection of the alleyway ceiling to establish if any repairs are necessary, and that it makes a proper record of its findings.
The records show that, due to the resident’s vulnerabilities, she is unable to communication via the telephone. The Equality Act 2010 (the Act)provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision or practice that puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The evidence shows that the landlord had attempted to contact the resident via telephone on several occasions to discuss her complaint. Its failure to properly check its records for any adjustments resulted in avoidable delays in communicating with her. The resident told the landlord that she had asked it to make this adjustment a number of times over several years. We have not seen these requests. However, in an email to her, the landlord did acknowledge that she had previously made it aware of her preferred method of communication. Had the landlord made proper checks at the point she had raised her complaint, the unnecessary delays in communicating with her would have likely been avoided.
The landlord assured the resident on 3 June 2023 that it would “adjust” her profile on its system to ensure staff contacted her via email in future. This was appropriate. However, the resident informed this Service that she continues to experience problems communicating with it via email. The Ombudsman will recommend that the landlord reviews its system for recording reasonable adjustments for its residents to ensure the information is accessible to all relevant teams and service areas. This will help ensure the landlord makes the necessary adjustments whenever necessary.
In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised to the resident for the inconvenience it had caused. However, it failed to properly acknowledge its excessive delays in attending to and carrying out the repairs the resident had reported. Furthermore, there is no evidence it had considered whether an offer of redress would have been appropriate. Given the delays were significant and it had made little effort to keep the resident updated, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered some compensation to put things right.
Its inadequate communication and failure to manage the resident’s expectations demonstrates a significant lack of customer focus. Its inability to provide adequate updates would have added to her uncertainty over whether it was taking any action to address her reports. That the landlord did not make reasonable efforts to monitor the repairs, progress them or provide updates would likely have caused her unnecessary distress and inconvenience. This is a failing and amounts to maladministration.

Complaint

The Code states that, when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 days of receipt. The landlord took 15 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 response. The evidence shows that the delay can be attributed to the fact it did not acknowledge the complaint until 7 days after the resident raised it.
Furthermore, the Code says that, in their acknowledgements, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. There is no evidence the landlord provided any such information. Although the overall delay in issuing a response was not excessive, the time taken to acknowledge the complaint and the fact the acknowledgement was inadequate was a departure from the Code. We have found this to be a recurring theme in the complaints we have considered.
The Code says that responses to stage 2 complaints should not exceed a further 20 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties. The records show that it took over 7 months for the landlord to issue a stage 2 response after the resident escalated her complaint on 8 March 2023. There is no evidence it sent any holding replies or contacted her to apologise and explain the reasons for the delays. There is no indication the landlord made any attempts to agree any new timescales or keep the resident updated on the progress of its investigation. This was a failing.
The landlord’s tenant handbook states that residents can ask that their complaints are progressed to stage 2. It says that this request should be made within a reasonable period (normally within 2 months of its stage 1 response or completion of agreed actions). However, the landlord’s stage 1 response stated that, if the resident remained dissatisfied with its response, she could ask for her complaint “to be escalated within 2 months of the date” of its letter. Records show that the resident was under the impression she could not escalate her complaint because she had made her request over 2 months after she received her stage 1 response. For this reason, she asked the landlord to log a new complaint about the same outstanding repairs.
It is noted that, although the landlord incorrectly logged a new stage 1 complaint, it quickly rectified this and opened a stage 2 complaint instead. It also apologised for the error and explained its escalation process to her. This was appropriate. However, the stage 1 response was misleading and failed to make clear that the 2 month deadline was not prescriptive and depended on whether it had completed actions that it had agreed at stage 1. The landlord should consider making this clear in any future stage 1 responses. It is also noted that the resident asked it for clarity on the landlord’s complaints process. If it has not done so already, it should provide her with or signpost her to where she can access the relevant information.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not acknowledge its poor complaint handling, provide any apology or consider offering any compensation for its failings. That the landlord departed significantly from its complaints process and the Code amounts to maladministration. For this reason, the Ombudsman will order it to pay the resident redress for the distress and inconvenience caused, in line with its remedies guidance.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. These should including details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
The evidence that the landlord provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs and complaints to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
The landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports during the period covered by the complaint. Furthermore, its repair log is unclear as to when it completed repairs, and it was only from internal correspondence that this investigation was able to estimate when operatives had attended. The landlord has provided minimal contemporaneous records to show it made reasonable efforts to follow up on the repairs the resident had requested.
The landlord’s poor record keeping has also been identified in an earlier determination by the Ombudsman (ref: 202230003). This failing would likely have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication, poor complaint handling and lack of updates to the resident. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was service failure in its record keeping. We have already asked the landlord to consider its record keeping with reference to our spotlight report

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks and outstanding communal repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident, in line with the Service’s Remedies Guidance. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
2. Pay the resident £450 compensation, which is calculated as follows:
  1. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond reasonably to the resident’s reports of leaks in communal areas.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
3. Carry out a thorough inspection of the alleyway ceiling and guttering to establish if any further repairs are necessary. The landlord is to make a record of its findings and share this with the Ombudsman, along with details of any recommended works. If any works are recommended, the landlord must ensure these are completed within 4 weeks of the date of the inspection.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider checking with residents what their preferred methods of communication at the point they raise complaints. This will help avoid any unnecessary confusion around correspondence.
The landlord should review its complaint response letters to ensure their contents correctly reflects the information provided in its tenant handbook, and its policies and procedures.
The landlord should consider reviewing its system for recording reasonable adjustments for its residents. It should ensure that all information relating to residents’ individual circumstances and agreed adjustments are stored centrally to minimise the risk of teams and service areas failing adhere to the agreed adjustments.