Wandsworth Council (202010348)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010348

Wandsworth Council

25 August 2021


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint in 2020 about outstanding repairs.
    2. The resident’s dispute of some of her service charges.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Service charges

  1. Under paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
  2. Throughout her complaint the resident has explained her dissatisfaction with the scale of her service charges. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are more appropriately dealt with by the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), rather than the Housing Ombudsman. The Tribunal has the specialised remit, experience, and legal powers to better resolve such disputes. Because of that, and in accordance with paragraph 39(i), this investigation will not address concerns relating to service charges.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. There is another property directly above hers. The evidence provided for this investigation shows that there has been a history of apparent repair issues with the resident’s home going back several years.
  2. On 7 October 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord. She said she had struggled since January 2020 to get in contact with it to chase outstanding repairs. She said these repairs were to her gutters, and to holes in her outside walls which were allowing pests to enter. She said her upstairs neighbour’s drainpipe had leaked and damaged her kitchen wall. She said a plasterer had recently attended (not the landlord’s contractor), and advised that her ceiling could potentially collapse as a result of “any movement from above”. She said it needed to be repaired immediately. There is no evidence of the landlord responding.
  3. Following correspondence with the resident, this Service asked the landlord on 8 February 2021 to provide her with a written complaint response. We contacted the landlord on 10 March, again asking it to respond to the resident.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 16 March 2021. It apologised for the delay. It said it had raised work orders on 13 October 2020 for repairs to the gutters, outside walls, the damaged kitchen wall, and to “check the pipe/stack for any leaks and carry out repairs as necessary”. It said its contractors had attended to begin repair works but needed to erect scaffolding to continue. It asked her to confirm her availability, as its contractors had been unable to gain access. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  5. The resident called this Service on 19 March 2021. She said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one complaint response. We asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on the same day. We explained that she was dissatisfied with its handling of her concerns with the pipe (causing the leak), gutters, and the ceiling. We said that as a resolution to her complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to repair the pipes and gutters, and to provide a list of the actions it would take to resolve the remaining repairs.
  6. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 29 April 2021. It confirmed its findings from its stage one response. It said it hoped the resident would agree to give access to allow the outstanding repairs to be completed, and said it would contact her to organise the necessary arrangements. It concluded by explaining how the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  7. On 15 July 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it was not responsible for repairs to her internal ceiling.

Assessment and findings

  1. As noted above, the full repairs history for the resident’s home goes back a number of years prior to the resident raising her complaint in October 2020. The Ombudsman is limited in how far back he can go in an investigation, and the Scheme sets out that an investigation will usually focus on the approximately six months leading up to a resident’s complaint. For that reason this investigation centres on the issues raised by the resident in her October 2020 complaint, rather than the whole multi-year period in which repair issues may have arisen.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it will respond to stage one complaints within 20 working days, and stage two complaints within 15 working days.
  3. In the resident’s stage one complaint response she explained that there were outstanding repairs to her gutters, external and internal walls. The landlord acknowledged these concerns in its stage one response, and explained that it had already raised work orders to complete repairs in October 2020. It said that it would finish the work once the resident gave access. This was a reasonable response as it demonstrated that the landlord was taking steps to resolve the outstanding repairs.
  4. The resident also reported an issue with her ceiling in her stage one complaint, and said it needed to be repaired immediately. The landlord did not address the repair in either of its complaint responses. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the landlord responding to this issue until 15 July 2021, despite it being part of the stage one and two complaints, and clearly a matter of concern for the resident. The information the landlord gave the resident was accurate and in line with her lease obligations for internal repairs, but the landlord delayed unreasonably in responding, as it should have promptly set her expectations concerning repair responsibilities.
  5. The resident raised her original complaint to the landlord on 7 October 2020. This Service asked the landlord to respond to her on 8 February and 10 March 2021. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 16 March 2021. It is evident that the landlord was aware of her complaint from October, as it said it had raised work orders on 13 October 2020. However, it is unclear why it took five months, and involvement from this Service for it to formally respond. It was a significant delay, without justification, and not in line with its complaint policy. The landlord also delayed issuing its stage two complaint response. Although it was not as significant a delay (29 working days), the landlord again failed to comply with its target timeframes.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. Although the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns with outstanding repairs was reasonable, it delayed issuing its stage one complaint response, and failed to address all of the issues in the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the failings identified in this report.
  2. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.