Wandle Housing Association Limited (202423257)

Background

1. The resident reported a leak, which had caused damage to the floorboards. The leak was repaired on the same day it was reported and the landlord offered the resident a second appointment for the replacement of the damaged floorboards. The resident considered the follow-up date too late as she had carpet fitters arranged for the next day. As the resident was not given an earlier appointment, she replaced the floorboards at her own expense and subsequently complained to the landlord requesting reimbursement of the costs she incurred.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a)     The resident’s report of a leak and the replacement of floorboards.

b)     The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s report of a leak and the replacement of floorboards.
   2. The complaint.

We have made no orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord attended and repaired the leak on the same day it was reported. Follow on works to replace the floorboards was booked under a new job and an appointment date and time given to the resident, which was in line with its repairs policy. The resident chased the landlord for an earlier slot as she had already scheduled carpet fitters to attend. Due to demand and availability of contractors, the landlord advised that no earlier slots were available. The follow-on works were correctly categorised as non-urgent, and the appointment date given was within the 28 days target date as per the landlord’s repairs policy.
5. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were compliant with its complaint policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. In this case, we have made no orders or recommendations for the landlord.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The resident reported a leak in her son’s bedroom on 28 July 2024, and the landlord attended on the same day. The resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy confirm repair of leaks inside the property are the landlord’s responsibility. The initial visit met the landlord’s repair policy of attending emergency repairs within 24 hours of a repair being reported.
7. During the 28 July 2024 repair visit, the contractor required access under the floorboards to reach the burst pipe. A carpenter was called to assist with access and removed some of the hardboard and a floorboard for the contractor to reach the burst pipe. The leak was repaired, and a second job was raised to secure the hardboard and the floorboard. The resident was given a date of 15 August 2024 for the floorboards to be replaced.
8. Following the repair visit, the resident contacted the landlord for an earlier slot for the floorboards to be fixed. She explained that she had already arranged for carpet fitters to attend the next day and that she would be charged a cancellation fee if she re-booked. The landlord has provided evidence that it tried to bring the date forward. No earlier appointments were available, so the resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 31 July 2024.
9. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that a service manager reviewed photos of the bedroom floor and deemed the floor safe and not in need of urgent attendance. As the job was not deemed urgent and within the 28 days repairs policy for non-urgent requests, the appointment date was not brought forward.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy defines routine repairs as any repairs which do not qualify as an emergency, which it aims to resolve within 28 days. The appointment given was 18 days after the leak was first reported, which is within the 28 days target. The landlord in its stage 1 response had a service manager review photos of the bedroom floor and the job was categorised as non-urgent. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs may only mean making the property safe, which the landlord complied with on the first visit.
11. The resident raised concerns around the urgency of the situation, primarily because carpet fitters were scheduled to relay carpets before the appointment of 15 August 2024. This was not deemed to be reasonable grounds to re-categorise the works as urgent. However, the landlord did attempt to bring the scheduled appointment forward and did not have capacity to do so. In the resident’s complaint escalation email, she also raised concerns that the impacted bedroom was her son’s bedroom who had additional needs. The landlord did not have a green flag on the account, which is an indicator of vulnerabilities within a household that it’s been informed of.
12. The property was a three-bedroom house occupied by four adults at the time, so there was likely to be space in the house if one bedroom was unfit to live in. The resident had already confirmed to the landlord that her son was not using the bedroom, which was why it was important to resolve the issue so that he could return to normality. The floorboards were due to be replaced within 18 days of the leak being reported, which is a reasonable timeframe for this type of repair.
13. In conclusion, the landlord responded to a report of a leak within 24 hours and made the home safe. It booked a follow-up appointment within 2 weeks to relay the flooring and informed the resident of the scheduled date and time. The landlord attempted to bring the follow-up appointment forward when the resident reached out. The timescale of the follow-up works were reasonable and well within its 28 days standard repairs target. We have therefore have found no maladministration.

14. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which the landlord’s complaint policy follows, requires the acknowledgement of a complaint within 5 working days. The landlord must provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
15. The landlord acknowledged and responded at stage 1 within 2 working days from when the resident made her complaint. This was in line with the landlord’s policy and the Code. The landlord fully addressed the resident’s complaint. It offered an apology and explained the steps it took to review whether the follow-on works were urgent or non-urgent.
16. The landlord’s handling of stage 2 of the complaint did meet the timescales required by the Code. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s 12 August 2024 escalation request on 19 August 2024, which was within the target of 5 working days. Its stage 2 response was dated 6 September 2024, which was 14 working days from when the escalation request was acknowledged. This was in line with its stage 2 response time limit of 20 working days. The stage 2 response offered an apology and addressed the issues raised by the resident. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that earlier appointments aren’t always available, due to demand and availability, especially if a specific skill was required.
17. In summary, the landlord responded within its policy timeline at all stages of the complaint, and it responded to all elements of the complaint. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s record keeping was reasonable. There were issues with contractor’s visiting the property after the resident had already fixed the floorboards.

Communication

19. The landlord should review its complaints process and communicate with its repairs team to avoid unnecessary visits, which will improve the service it provides to its residents.