Wandle Housing Association Limited (202329490)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329490

Wandle Housing Association Limited

10 October 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 leaseholder 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 response to the leaseholder’s reports of water ingress at her property.
  2. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat within a block. The leaseholder signed the lease agreement on 29 March 2015. The leaseholder sublets the property to a tenant which is permitted within the terms of her lease. Her complaint relates to water ingress through the balcony doors at the property.
  2. The leaseholder first raised a repair with the landlord for water ingress at her property on 8 November 2022 via email. On 2 December 2022, the leaseholder emailed the landlord again and said no one had been in touch since she reported the issue. She said the water ingress was causing damp and mould at the property.
  3. On 19 October 2023, the leaseholder raised her complaint. She said she had been waiting a year for the landlord to stop the water ingress at her property. The landlord replied on 31 October 2023 at stage 1 of its internal complaints process. It said it had requested a surveyor to attend as soon as possible.
  4. The leaseholder escalated her complaint on 28 November 2023. The landlord replied at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 5 February 2024. It said that all the balconies within the block had defects present. The landlord said it had a team working to resolve these issues.
  5. The leaseholder was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on the same day.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s reports of water ingress at her property

  1. The evidence provided shows the leaseholder first contacted the landlord to report water ingress on 8 November 2022 via email. There is no evidence provided by the landlord to show it responded to the leaseholder’s report of the issue.
  2. The leaseholder emailed again on 2 December 2022 and said she had not heard from the landlord. She said the water ingress had caused damp, and it was a health hazard. The landlord replied on 9 December 2022. It said it had raised an emergency job for the repair and it would call her regarding the appointment. The evidence provided by the landlord shows it raised a job and attended on the same day, 9 December 2022. The landlord recorded that no access was given to the property. There is no evidence to show the leaseholder was given notice of this appointment.
  3. The lease says the landlord shall maintain and repair the ‘main structure of the building, all external and load-bearing walls, the windows and doors on the outside of the flats within the building’. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend non-emergency repairs within 28 days. The appointment was 34 days after the leaseholder had first raised the repair. The landlord did not attend the repair in accordance with the timescales as set out in the repairs policy, which was inappropriate.
  4. On 12 December 2022, the leaseholder emailed the landlord again. She said she missed an appointment for the repair due to lack of notice. The leaseholder said she was given a 10-minute warning by the landlord that it would be attending. The landlord’s repairs policy also says it will ‘ensure there is a good line of communication.’ In this case it failed to confirm the appointment with the leaseholder within a reasonable time, which was also an inappropriate breach of its policy.
  5. On 21 December 2022, the leaseholder said the landlord rang to book in an appointment for 2 days later. It said it would call her back to confirm the details, but it did not. The leaseholder said she tried to call the landlord back but was unsuccessful.
  6. The evidence provided shows the landlord attended the property on 11 January 2023 to repair the leak through the balcony doors. On 31 January 2023, the leaseholder emailed the landlord. She said that it had done a ‘botched job’ of fixing the water ingress. The leaseholder said that silicone had been put around the frame of the balcony doors in her property. She said the floors and walls were ‘now damp’ and it was a health and safety concern.
  7. The landlord attended the property on 9 February 2023. The leaseholder said in an email to the landlord that no notice was given of this appointment. She said because of the lack of notice she was unable to give access as no one was present at the property. This was another example of a failure to communicate effectively by the landlord, regarding appointments. The lack of an efficient repair process to conduct the necessary works will have caused the leaseholder distress and inconvenience. This meant there were avoidable delays in providing resolution to the issue.
  8. On 13 March 2023, the leaseholder emailed the landlord. She said it had attended for a further inspection but not a repair. Based on the timeframes set out in its repairs policy, the landlord’s actions were not consistent with the timescales. The leaseholder would have reasonably expected a repair to have been completed within these timeframes. The leaseholder had been waiting around 5 months for the repair to be completed and there was a clear lack of communication by the landlord.
  9. The leaseholder emailed the landlord on the 1 June 2023. She said she had received a phone call asking for access on that day, however, this was at odds with the information she had previously received that a repairs visit had been booked in for the following week. The leaseholder then said on 8 June 2023 the landlord failed to attend the arranged appointment. The landlord enquired with the leaseholder on 9 June 2023 if the appointment had taken place. The leaseholder replied on the same day and confirmed it had not.
  10. On 25 July 2023, the landlord replied to an email sent by the leaseholder. It said that a roofer would need to attend and check the building. The landlord said it would be in touch with the leaseholder.
  11. The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 25 September and 19 October 2023 chasing the repair. She said no one had been in contact with her since July. In both emails she said there was mould on the walls and damage to the walls and floors in her property.
  12. On 19 October 2023, the leaseholder raised her complaint to the landlord. She said she had been waiting a year for the landlord to stop the water ingress at her property. She said the mould on the walls was a health risk.
  13. The landlord replied at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 31 October 2023. It said it had attended 2 months previously and an inspection was required for the whole building. However, an error meant the job raised for the inspection was marked as completed. The landlord said it had now raised a new job for an inspection.
  14. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says when damp and mould is reported it will firstly attend and conduct a mould wash. It says it will inspect any water ingress and report back repairs to ‘address the causes of damp and mould rather than just tackling the symptoms’. It will then visit a second time to complete a post inspection to visit the repair. There is no evidence that either of these steps took place.
  15. The leaseholder had been reporting water ingress to it for around a year when she raised her complaint to the landlord. There had been 1 repair to the balcony doors that was unsuccessful. There were numerous missed appointments caused by the landlord’s poor communications.
  16. When the leaseholder first reported the damp and mould to the landlord it should of acted in accordance with its damp and mould policy. The landlord should of attended to inspect the repair and then find the root cause. A follow up visit should of then been arranged. There is no evidence any of these steps took place. The failure to arrange a repair for the damp and mould was a breach of its policy. There was a lack of action by the landlord following its decision to tackle the issue as part of a building wide solution. This was inappropriate and will have caused the leaseholder distress.
  17. The landlord’s reply at stage 1 lacked an acknowledgement of its delays in dealing with the repair. No compensation was offered and there was a lack of investigation into the leaseholder’s complaint. The landlord did not identify any failings. It’s response was an example of poor communication and this will have compounded the issue for her. The failure to address these issues as part of its stage 1 complaint response was unreasonable.
  18. On 28 November 2023, the leaseholder escalated her complaint and also contacted this Service. She said the landlord had not tried to stop the water ingress. The leaseholder said water was coming into her property every time it rained.
  19. The leaseholder emailed the landlord on 16 December 2023. In the email she said another leaseholder in the block had given her a letter the landlord had sent them 6 years previously. The leaseholder said the letter showed the landlord was already aware of the ‘leaking balconies’ at the block. She was unhappy she had not been made aware of the issue at that time.
  20. The landlord replied to the leaseholder at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 5 February 2024. The letter was sent to the leasehold property, despite the leaseholder’s request for correspondence to be sent to an alternative address previously. This caused a delay to the leaseholder receiving her stage 2 reply. The landlord said in its response that there were ‘defects present on all balconies concerned within the block’ and the issue was with its planned investment team. It said the leaseholder’s issue was to be dealt with by that team and that was its final response.
  21. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies damp and mould as a hazard in a residential property. It states that damp and mould can be a threat to health, including breathing difficulties and asthma. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not recognise the negative health and safety concerns around damp and mould in its responses to the leaseholder.
  22. The landlord’s response detailed its decision to pass the long term solution of the issue to its planned investment team and effectively outsource resolution of the issues in the leaseholders complaint. This was unfair and unempathetic. The response did not detail any interim solution to treat the mould whilst waiting for a permanent solution.
  23. The leaseholder had been waiting around 15 months for the landlord to action the repair. The landlord then told her the water ingress was a defect affecting the whole block of flats. The landlord’s repairs policy says major repairs are non-emergency routine repairs costing over £1000 and ‘likely to be extensive’. It says it aims to complete major repairs within 90 days, although it may take longer if it forms part of a larger programme.
  24. The leaseholder brought her complaint to this Service on 5 February 2024. Following this, on 25 March 2024, the landlord sent the leaseholder a revised stage 2 complaint response. It said there had been ‘poor communication’ regarding its appointments. The landlord said it attended 3 times between July and August 2023 but was unable to gain access. No evidence has been provided to this Service for these appointments or if notice was given to the leaseholder.
  25. The landlord further said it was ‘disappointed’ that the leaseholder’s reports of damp and mould had not been actioned by it previously. It said it would ‘like to arrange’ an appointment to assess the damp and mould ‘as soon as possible’.
  26. The landlord at this point upheld the leaseholder’s complaint, and it offered her £350 in compensation for repairs. £250 was offered for the delays in responding to her reports of water ingress and £100 for poor communication. The landlord acknowledged it had not actioned her damp and mould reports and its poor communication.
  27. In summary, the landlord failed to respond to the leaseholder’s reports of repairs in the timeframes outlined in its own policy’s. The landlord failed to comply with its policy objectives to ensure good communication on timeframes and progress of any major repairs. The landlord did not acknowledge these failures as part of its complaint process, however, recognised some failings and offered redress after the matter had been referred to the Ombudsman.
  28. When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the leaseholder’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  29. The landlord offered compensation in its third response to the leaseholder, following her contact with this Service. The amount of compensation offered did not adequately reflect the extent of the service failures in its repairs and communications to her. It did not reflect the level of detriment caused by the water damage or the known hazards and risk to health from damp and mould. The landlord failed to put things right with an appropriate offer of compensation to reflect the extent of its failing. This caused distress and inconvenience to the leaseholder and amounts to maladministration. An order of increased compensation is made below.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. On 19 October 2023, the leaseholder raised her complaint to the landlord. She said it had been a year since she first reported the water ingress, and it had not completed the repair.
  2. Around 8 working days later, the landlord replied to the leaseholder at stage 1 of its internal complaints process, on 31 October 2023. This was within the landlord’s complaint’s policy timeframe of 10 working days. It said that it had ‘requested a surveyor attends ASAP.’ It did not uphold her complaint or offer her any compensation.
  3. On 28 November 2023, the leaseholder escalated her complaint. She said no one had been in touch with her or had inspected the repair. The leaseholder chased her complaint on 19 January 2024 as she had not heard back from the landlord. It replied around 4 working days later and said it would ‘chase’ her complaint response. It was unreasonable that the leaseholder had to follow up her complaint. This will have caused inconvenience to her.
  4. The landlord replied at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 5 February 2024. This was around 46 working days after she had escalated her complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy says that at stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay of around 26 working days for its stage 2 response. This was inappropriate and the delay was a breach of its policy. The lack of recognition will have caused distress to the leaseholder.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it did not uphold the leaseholder’s complaint or make an offer of compensation. It failed to understand the leaseholder’s concerns and recognise the delays she had faced.
  6. The leaseholder brought her complaint to this Service on 5 February 2024. Following this, the landlord sent her a ‘revised’ stage 2 response. Within this it admitted to complaint handling failings and offered the leaseholder compensation. It was unfair that the landlord did not fully investigate her complaint and attempt to put things right for the leaseholder, as part of its established complaints process, and before she felt the necessity to contact the Ombudsman.
  7. When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right. It also considers if it resolved the leaseholder’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. These are to Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as in line with our own guidance on remedies.
  8. The landlord admitted to complaint handling failings in its third response. There was an offer of £150 compensation and an acknowledgement of the delay. If this made as part of the landlord’s established complaint process, it would have been equivalent to the amount of compensation which represented reasonable redress for the identified failings. The landlord, however, did not explain why it reached a different conclusion in its third response, and fundamentally failed to reach this conclusion as part of its established complaint’s process. It is reasonable to conclude, given its alternate finding without any new evidence, that the landlord did not investigate her complaint properly at stage 1 and 2 of its process.
  9. In summary, the landlord’s complaint process failed and the leaseholder had to wait longer for a fair outcome. The amount offered for the complaint handling failure by the landlord is, however, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Had this been offered at stage 2, a finding of reasonable redress would have been determined. However, due to the inconvenience of the delay to resolution for the leaseholder, and the outlined case handling failures, there is a finding of service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling. An order for compensation will be made at the same amount offered by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s reports of water ingress at her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report. It must ensure the Ombudsman is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
    1. the landlord should apologise in writing to the leaseholder for the failings outlined above.
    2. the landlord should pay the leaseholder £750 in compensation, comprising of:
      1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the water ingress repair over 24 months, equivalent to £25 per month,
      2. £150 for the complaint handling,
      3. The landlord is free to deduct any of the £500 previously offered in compensation for the handling of the repair and complaint handling, if this has already been paid to the leaseholder.
  2. The landlord will produce a schedule of works with associated timescales to tackle the root cause of the water ingress on the balcony and provide a copy to the leaseholder and this Service.
  3. The landlord is to complete a damp and mould inspection on the leaseholder’s property and provide a treatment plan for the presence of damp and mould in the interim whilst awaiting to complete the works to prevent the root cause.