Wandle Housing Association Limited (202412010)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412010

Wandle Housing Association Limited

15 July 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of mice in the property.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 20 January 2020. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a second floor flat. The resident has autism and a reasonable adjustment for contact via email only with the landlord.
4. On 26 March 2024, the resident reported mice in her property. She said due to her autism, she was unable to stay in the flat with a mice infestation. The landlord raised a works order the following day.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 28 March 2024 about the landlord’s slow response to her reports of the mice infestation. She said the landlord had told her catching them was her responsibility, but it would send someone in 3 weeks to fill the holes in the communal areas. The resident said that despite informing the landlord of her multiple disabilities it had not offered to move her. The resident asked for suitable accommodation until the property was free of mice or to cover the cost of her staying somewhere else. The resident raised a further formal complaint on 17 April 2024 in which she reiterated the same points as the earlier complaint.
6. Due to no response from the landlord, the resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 2 and 7 May 2024. She said the landlord had failed to attend on 19 April 2024 as planned. A contractor had attended on 2 May 2024 but did no proofing works. She requested compensation of £1837.43 including £1,150 for both her and a friend’s time spent proofing the property.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 May 2024. It accepted it had failed to attend 3 times to proof the property and offered compensation of £30 to reflect the failing. It confirmed it had rebooked the appointment for 26 June 2024.
8. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 23 June 2024. She requested this again on 16 September 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 October 2024. The key points were as follows:
   1. The resident had initially reported mice in the property on 26 and 28 March 2024 following which 3 appointments were cancelled. It apologised and accepted it could have done better.
   2. Following further contact from the resident, it attended on 5 May 2024 and completed further works on 10 June 2024. The landlord said it attended earlier than planned and completed the repair within its timescales.
   3. It could see the resident had requested escalation to stage 2 in April, but it could not have escalated to stage 2 prior to stage 1 as per its complaints process.
   4. With regards to the resident specific request for compensation for her and her friends time it referred to the resident’s tenancy agreement and reminded her that pest control was a resident’s responsibility. However, on this occasion it thought it should help. It was therefore not unusual for a resident to do what they could to keep an environment pest free.
   5. It offered £50 compensation for the missed appointments and £50 for the delay in completing the works.
9. The landlord attended again on 14 October 2024 to complete further works.
10. In referring the complaint to us, the resident said the issue remained outstanding and she wanted it resolved.

Assessment and findings

11. The resident reported a mice infestation in the property on 26 March 2024. The following day, the landlord raised a works order for its contractor to attend. This was within its 28 day published repair timescale.
12. Furthermore, as the landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable, and the mice infestation was adversely affecting the resident, it contacted the contractor to ask if the appointment could be brought forward and marked as urgent. This was reasonable in the circumstances and showed empathy towards to the resident.
13. However, the landlord did not contact the resident to inform her of the appointment until 2 April 2024. During that period, albeit short, the resident had continued to contact the landlord to say she was unable to stay in the property due to the infestation, and she asked the landlord to provide alternative accommodation. It therefore would have been helpful for the landlord to have contacted the resident to alleviate her concerns, give her advice on pest control and inform her of its position in relation to her accommodation request.
14. Furthermore, it also would have been helpful for the landlord to have explained to the resident why it would be unable to attend at an earlier time than planned as requested by the resident and link that reasoning to its repairs policy. Not doing so caused the resident to raise a formal complaint.
15. In the resident’s formal complaint, she raised further concerns about the impact the mice had on her autism and while we cannot make a causal link between the mice and the resident’s health, we can consider the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident and her concerns highlighted a lack of empathy towards the resident. The landlord needs to ensure that it is equipped to understand and respond effectively to vulnerable residents. Not doing so caused the resident further distress.
16. The landlord was due to attend the resident’s property on 19 April 2024. However, it did not attend. The evidence provided by the landlord shows this was due to the pest contractor being unable to contact the resident to confirm the appointment. The landlord has a note on its system to say that the resident would only communicate via email, and this is an agreed reasonable adjustment. Where such adjustments are in place, the landlord needs to ensure it communicates this to its contractors. Its failure to do so in this instance caused further delay in the resolution of the pest issue.
17. The landlord attended on 2 May 2024 to inspect the property for an infestation. It appropriately identified the works needed and raised a follow on appointment. While the resident understood the appointment was for the proofing works, it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property to understand the nature and extent of the works needed. However, it would have been useful for the landlord to have communicated this to the resident prior to the appointment to manage her expectations.
18. It booked a further appointment for 16 May 2024, however there is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of this. Therefore, when the contractor attended the resident was unavailable for the appointment. The landlord needs to ensure it has effective communication between its contractors and its residents. Its communication failures in this instance caused further delays.
19. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it had missed appointments, including 1 on 13 May 2024. While it was appropriate of it to acknowledge the missed appointments and compensate the resident accordingly, the landlord has provided no evidence to show it had ever arranged an appointment for 13 May 2024. This is further evidence of a record keeping issue.
20. The landlord arranged for its contractor to complete further works on 26 June 2024, however, helpfully it brought that appointment forward to 10 June 2024. Given the resident’s personal circumstances and the already delayed response it was appropriate of the landlord to undertake the works at the earliest opportunity. The repair log shows that it attended and completed the required works to the kitchen to stop the mice entering the property.
21. The resident then contacted the landlord on 7 September 2024 to say mice droppings had appeared and despite asking the landlord to fill the holes months ago, it had not so she filled them herself. The repair log from 10 June 2024 notes the resident had filled the holes herself however the contractor assessed the resident’s repair on 2 May 2024 and recommended further reinforcement works. It completed those on 10 June 2024. While it is unfortunate these works eventually failed, the landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified contractors when they complete works, that they are successful.
22. The landlord appropriately booked a further appointment for 25 September 2024. While this would have been in line with its 28 day repair timescale, its contractor did not attend again. This is further evidence of a lack of effective communication between the landlord and its contractors, and the landlord should consider any learning it can take from this.
23. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 October 2024. However, it did not acknowledge the further issues the resident was having with the infestation or explain the steps it would take going forward to help resolve the matter. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have provided further clarity on the actions it intended to take especially given that in her escalation request on 16 September 2024, the resident specifically mentioned the recurrence of the issue.
24. The landlord rearranged the appointment for 14 October 2024, and it attended to complete further works. The contractor identified that the bathroom and kitchen needed further work to stop the mice from entering. The landlord appropriately rebooked the appointment for 25 October 2024.
25. Unfortunately, on that date the contractor and resident had a disagreement about whether the resident could take photographs of the contractor. The contractor, after seeking clarification from management, left the property without completing works. While it is unfortunate the works were not complete on that date, contractors are entitled to feel comfortable to complete works. It would have been useful however for the landlord to explain to the resident its position in relation to photographing contractors.
26. The landlord rebooked the appointment for 7 November 2024; However, it is unclear from the evidence provided if the resident was present at the property that day or not, but the contractor was unable to gain access to complete the repair. We understand that the issue with mice is still ongoing.
27. Throughout the resident’s complaint she requested compensation of over £1,000 for her and a friend’s time spent proofing the property. In its stage 2 response, the landlord helpfully set out to the resident that it was unable to pay this amount as pest control was in fact a resident’s responsibility. It confirmed it had undertaken the repairs in this instance as it thought it “should help.” While that may be the case, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations that it would complete works, and we cannot see that it ever fully explained to her in a clear manner that pest control was in fact her responsibility. While it was reasonable of it not to pay the resident the requested amount, its lack of explanation with regards to responsibility caused confusion.
28. Furthermore, the resident requested other costs associated with attempting to resolve the issue including a vet bill for her guinea pig, the purchase of bait and traps and £500 for the distress and inconvenience. It was reasonable of the landlord not to cover this cost, as the responsibility for pest control lay with the resident. However, it would have been useful for the landlord to have provided a response to the resident’s specific request.
29. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of mice in the property fell below the standard expected by the Ombudsman and amounts to a finding of maladministration.
30. A compensation order has been made for £350, comprising:
    1. £50 previously offered for the missed appointments.
    2. £150 for the delay in completing the proofing works inclusive of the £50 previously offered.
    3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

31. The resident raised a formal complaint on 28 March 2024. However, the landlord did not log this as a formal complaint. Instead, it said it had logged it as a service request for pest control. Given that the resident had expressly said she wished to raise a complaint, this was not appropriate.
32. The resident then raised a further formal complaint on 17 April 2024. However, the landlord again did not log or acknowledge this complaint which led to the resident raising a further complaint on 30 April 2024. While the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 April 2024, it is unsatisfactory that it took 3 attempts for the landlord to formally acknowledge the complaint.
33. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 May 2024. This was 5 working days outside of its published timescale of 10 working days. Furthermore, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it communicated the delay to the resident. This is not appropriate and not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
34. The landlord’s delay and lack of response led to the resident requesting escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process on 7 May 2024. While the landlord at that stage had not responded at stage 1, this would have been an opportunity for it to communicate the delay in responding at the first stage to the resident. Furthermore, we cannot see that the landlord acknowledged or apologised for this delay.
35. It is also important to note the complaint response did not address all the elements raised by the resident in her formal complaints. This is not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code and caused further delays to the resident receiving a full resolution to her complaint.
36. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 23 June 2024. However, the landlord did not acknowledge this request. Landlord’s need to ensure they record all complaint escalation requests to ensure effective and efficient complaint handling for its residents.
37. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process again on 16 September 2024, which the landlord acknowledged, in line with its complaint policy on the same date.
38. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 October 2024. This was 14 working days after second escalation request and therefore in line with the landlord’s policy.
39. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling fell below the standard expected by the Ombudsman and amounts to a finding of maladministration.
40. A compensation order has been made for £200, made up of:
    1. £50 for not acknowledging the resident’s initial complaints.
    2. £50 for the delayed stage 1 response.
    3. £50 for not addressing all elements of the complaint.
    4. £50 for not escalating the complaint to stage 2 at the earliest opportunity.

Determination

41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of mice in the property.
42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

43. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
44. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £550. This is to be paid less the £100 previously offered if it has not already paid this.
45. We understand the pest issue is still outstanding, therefore within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must provide a timebound action plan to the resident and us setting out the action it intends to take to resolve the mice infestation for the resident. If the landlord considers the matter resolved, it must confirm that in writing to the resident and us setting out the reasons why.
46. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must undertake a review of this case taking into account the failings found in this report. The review must pay particular attention to the resident’s neurodiversity to ensure similar failings are not repeated. This may include arranging training where appropriate.

Recommendations

47. We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports following publication. In January 2023, we published our spotlight on Attitude, respect, and rights; A relationship of equals and in May 2023 we published our spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight reports. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight reports unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.