Wandle Housing Association Limited (202416073)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416073

Wandle Housing Association Limited

29 August 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:
   1. Reports of outdoor lighting.
   2. Reports of uneven garden slabs.
   3. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident and her partner hold a joint assured tenancy on a house owned by the housing association. The tenancy agreement began in April 2023. They live with their 3 children. Both of the residents contributed to progressing the complaint through to the Service. For ease of reading, both will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
3. In November 2023, the resident requested that the landlord install lighting in her front door. She said it was dark and difficult to see her keys. She also said that people had relieved themselves in her garden, and she believed lighting would act as a deterrent. The resident said that her vulnerable children were afraid to use the garden, which also has uneven paving that she would like the landlord to repair.
4. The landlord responded in November 2023, saying that it was not obliged to install lights, but the resident could do so at her own expense. It said that it was unaware of the children’s medical history and asked her to send medical notes so it could update its records.
5. The resident provided her children’s medical records on 19 March 2024.  She repeated her concerns in her formal complaint dated 12 May 2024.
6. The landlord responded with its stage 1 complaint response on 21 May 2024. It said:
   1. Additional lighting will be an improvement to the property which under the tenancy agreement it was not obliged to do. The resident could install lights at her own expense.
   2. It would inspect the garden and would raise any necessary repairs.
   3. It asked the resident to provide medical notes of her children.
7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 June 2024. She said:
   1. She had already provided the landlord with her children’s medical notes on 19 March 2024.
   2. The landlord had sent her pictures which it said were taken during its lighting assessment. She said these were taken in daylight, of a neighbouring house, before her move-in. She asked the landlord to inspect the lights and broken slabs, emphasising that both were health and safety matters.
   3. The person who handled her service request also handled her complaint, and therefore, the landlord’s handling of the complaint was not fair.
8. The landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the garden slabs in July 2024. The surveyor’s report said the property was beginning to show signs of subsidence, most likely caused by an overgrown tree in the resident’s garden. It said it would need to arrange the removal of the tree and repair the paving.
9. The landlord sent its final response letter on 11 July 2024, saying:
   1. The resident had not reported antisocial behaviour (ASB); therefore, it could not justify the cost of installing outdoor lighting from its limited budget.
   2. It had now logged her report and its ASB team would contact the resident.
   3. It had requested quotes for tree removal and repair to the garden slab. It would contact the resident once approved.
   4. It had not received the medical records for her children.
10. The resident brought her complaint to the Service on 2 July 2024. She told us in July 2025 that the landlord had recently installed security lights and planned to begin repairs on the garden slabs soon. She also said her children’s records had now been updated. The resident stated that, in her opinion, the landlord has only taken action due to the Ombudsman’s involvement. To resolve the complaint, she would like to be compensated.
11. The resident told us in August 2025 that the landlord had offered her £100 in compensation, comprising £50 for handling of the repair to the slabs and £50 for its complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. The resident emailed the landlord with her children’s medical records on 19 March 2024. These did not reference her requests for outdoor lighting or the uneven slabs, but were relevant for future reference, as the landlord prioritises some repairs according to the vulnerabilities of residents. In her escalation request, she informed the landlord that she had already sent these records. However, in its final response letter, it repeated its request for these records. The resident told us the landlord had since updated its records. However, she said she would like compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay.
13. This issue was not part of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord, and the landlord had not had the opportunity to respond to this issue. As such, this issue is outside the scope of this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied about this, she has the option of raising a new complaint with the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outdoor lighting

14. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
15. On 10 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and requested that it fit lighting outside her front door. She said it was very dark, made worse by the large hedges in her garden. She said people had crossed her garden and, at times, relieved themselves in it. She also said that her vulnerable children were afraid to use the garden. The landlord logged the resident’s service request on the same day and provided her with a reference number for her request.
16. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 September 2023 and said it was happy to support the resident by giving her consent to install the lighting at her own expense. It said it would not pay for it because installing outdoor lights is an improvement of the property, which it said it was not obligated to do. This was correct. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, landlords have an obligation to repair the property and keep it in repair. ‘Keeping in-repair’ means maintaining the standards of the property at the start of the tenancy throughout the tenancy period. This obligation does not extend to improving the property.
17. In response, the resident said the lighting was a necessary health and safety measure and a deterrent to ASB. She also said her children were afraid to use the garden. The landlord appropriately checked its ASB records. However, there was no evidence that the resident had previously reported the matter. The landlord therefore referred the case to its ASB team, which it said would contact her soon. This was a proportionate response, demonstrating the landlord’s resolution-focused approach.
18. The landlord’s ASB policy says the landlord will assess each case on its circumstances. It would consider the complainant’s security at home. However, any subsequent work must have a crime reference number from the police or supporting documents from other partner agencies. With this in mind, it was reasonable for the landlord to request that the resident provide medical records of her children, given that she had mentioned in her complaint that the children’s vulnerabilities contributed to the reasons she had requested the landlord to install the lighting.
19. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy says it will work with residents to find ways of driving improvements to its neighbourhoods. It will support such projects through its estate improvement budget. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain that its budget was limited and why it could not cover the cost. It was also reasonable that the landlord provided the resident with an alternative solution by giving her consent to install lighting at her own expense.
20. Ultimately, the landlord was not obliged to install outdoor lighting. It considered the resident’s request against several of its policies and procedures, including its repairs, estate management, and ASB. It offered the resident a reasonable solution by giving its consent for her to install the lighting. There is no evidence of a failure by the landlord, and therefore no evidence of maladministration.
21. It is recognised that the landlord has now installed outdoor lighting in the resident’s front garden. We have not seen evidence explaining the reason that led the landlord to install the lighting. Either way, it shows that the landlord was open to reviewing the resident’s request and evidently made efforts to resolve her complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of uneven garden slabs

22. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that tenants must keep the garden tidy, including the lawn, paved yard, enclosed spaces, outside walls, and fences.
23. The resident reported to the landlord in March 2024 that the paving slabs in her garden were uneven, causing puddles and posing a risk to her children. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s garden in July 2024. They said the damage to the slabs was likely caused by an overgrown tree. The surveyor recommended removing the tree and repairing the uneven slabs. The landlord said it would request a quote, and once approved, it would book the job with the resident.
24. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy states that residents with private gardens are responsible for tree maintenance in their gardens. However, the policy says that the landlord may assist where there’s a risk to residents or the property. It would take a risk-based tree inspection and maintenance programme.
25. In this case, the landlord appropriately accepted undertaking the works. Once the landlord committed to doing the work, it should have done so within the timeframe set in its policy. Routine and complex repairs can take up to 90 working days. The landlord inspected the property in July 2024. It booked the job to start in July 2025, 261 working days after its inspection. This was not appropriate.
26. We have not seen evidence that the landlord explained the delay to the resident. While it may be the case that the delay was outside the landlord’s control, the failure here was not communicating with the resident during the significant delay period. The landlord’s lack of communication undermined its efforts to resolve the resident’s complaint, and this was a service failure.
27. We have relied on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and have considered that the resident was affected by the landlord’s shortcomings. Accordingly, we have made an order for compensation below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

28. On 14 February 2024, the resident emailed the landlord. She said that if the landlord was unwilling to install the outdoor lighting, she would like to raise her email as a formal complaint. The landlord failed to raise this email as a formal complaint. The landlord responded to the resident’s email; however, it did not log this as a formal complaint. This was a failing which delayed the resident by 67 working days in escalating her complaint through the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.
29. In her escalation request, the resident also raised concerns about whether the landlord handled her complaint fairly, as the officer who had dealt with her service request and responded to her in March 2024 also responded to her stage 1 complaint in May 2024. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says the landlords should take measures to address any actual or perceived conflict of interest. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to reassure the resident that an appropriate investigation had been carried out, and that the second response would be investigated by a member of staff removed from the situation. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concern.  Nevertheless, we have seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord handled the complaint unfairly or that the alleged conflict of interest had any bearing on the landlord’s complaint response.
30. Overall, there were shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the associate complaints. To put things right, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 in compensation. We have used our remedies guidance for situations where there was a service failure which caused distress for a short period.
31. In July 2025 we completed our constructive engagement process with the landlord. At this stage we are satisfied the landlord has recognised and responded to the issues identified with its complaints handling. It has an improvement plan with timescales and oversight and scrutiny arrangements.  We will continue to monitor the landlord to make sure there is a positive change for residents. For this reason, learning orders from the case were not necessary.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of outdoor lighting.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of uneven garden slabs.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Order

35. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord must pay the resident directly and provide evidence to the Service within 4 weeks from the date of this report, as follows:
    1. £100 for its handling of the repairs to the garden’s slabs, including the £50 already offered in August 2025.
    2. £100 for its handling of the complaint, including the £50 already offered in August 2025.