Wandsworth Council (202119282)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119282

Wandsworth Council

23 May 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Requirement for the resident to sign a disclaimer as part of her mutual exchange.
2. Handling of the resident’s repair reports.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She was assigned the tenancy on 21 December 2020 by way of mutual exchange. The resident is disabled with restricted mobility.
The property is a two bedroom terraced house with private front and rear gardens.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. It’s complaint policy states that it will provide a written response within 20 working days at stage one, and 25 working days at stage two.

Summary of events

On 19 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident, who was at the time an applicant for a mutual exchange into the property. The letter quoted the contents of an email from the resident’s then landlord which stated that the resident was “happy to fund the stairlift herself, as and when she may need this, she has advised that the property is big enough at the moment for her to cope downstairs, but should this become an issue she is happy to get a stair lift privately installed”. It further quoted that the resident was “happy to sign any disclaimer given, as she would like to move, her wellbeing will improve being around her support network.”
The letter asked the resident to sign a disclaimer in agreement with these statements. It advised that once the signed letter had been returned to the landlord, it would proceed with the paperwork to complete the mutual exchange process.
On 21 December 2020, the mutual exchange was completed and the resident became tenant of the property. A checklist completed by the landlord on this day noted that the kitchen door and “glass above bedroom door” needed to be replaced.
On 5 March 2021, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord. They said that the resident had raised concerns about outstanding repair issues in the property which had been reported to the landlord on several occasions, and the fact that she was unable to access the upstairs of her property because she was waiting for a stairlift to be installed.
On 22 March 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s MP. It said that extensive repairs had been completed to the resident’s property, but it was aware that some were still outstanding and was working to complete these. The landlord advised that it did not deal directly with adaptations such as stairlifts but that it had enquired with the ‘home improvement agency’ which did, and the resident was not known to it. The landlord stated that it would contact the resident to advise her on the process of arranging an occupational therapy assessment.
On 21 June 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She stated that:
1. She had reported outstanding repairs several times, including supplying pictures, and these had still not been addressed. These were listed as:
  1. Kitchen sink unit requiring replacement;
  2. Broken glass in bedroom;
  3. Damp/staining on the walls in kitchen-diner;
  4. Scaffolding left in situ on the front of the house without works to render the exterior being completed;
  5. A “structural development” (decking and surrounding brickwork) in the rear garden making it unsafe to access.
2. She believed that repairs were being “withheld” due to the disclaimer she was “forced to sign as part of the mutual exchange process”.
3. This disclaimer had no basis in either the landlord’s policy or in law, and she believed she had been discriminated against on grounds of disability by being asked to sign it.
4. She wished for the landlord to complete all outstanding repairs, and offer an apology and compensation for distress and inconvenience.
On 23 June 2021, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint. It advised her that it would be dealing with her complaint outside of the complaint process as it felt that the issue could be addressed locally with a quicker response provided.
On the same day, the landlord contacted the resident to arrange to inspect the property for outstanding repairs. The resident informed it that she was unwilling to deal with the member of staff it had nominated for this task (due to the fact they had previously failed to act on repair reports made to them) and asked for it to provide an alternate one.
On 13 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord asking that her complaint now be dealt with under stage one of its complaints process. She stated that the repairs were still outstanding and she had not received any update on her complaint.
On 15 July 2021, the landlord confirmed it would deal with the resident’s request under stage one of its complaints process. It said it would provide a response “as soon as possible”.
On 19 July 2021, the resident contacted this Service to express dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident said that her first attempt to log a complaint about the matters had resulted in no response and her second attempt had been “intercepted” and she had been informed it would be handled under a ‘local complaint procedure’. She stated that, having received no update on this, she had asked for her complaint to progress to stage one of the complaint procedure and had received no response.
On 16 August 2021, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. It apologised for the delay and stated that:
1. All residents were asked to sign a disclaimer if unauthorised works had been carried out in the property without its consent and this was a part of its mutual exchange procedure.
2. It had attempted to arrange an inspection of the property to establish outstanding repairs but the resident had refused to deal with the member of staff appointed to do this.
3. It had requested an alternate member of staff to contact her and arrange the inspection but this had not happened. It apologised for this and said it would follow up on the matter.
4. It had found no evidence of decisions being made on the grounds of disability to disadvantage the resident and all actions and decisions had been taken in an unbiased manner.
5. It was therefore upholding her complaint about the delays in processing her repairs but not upholding her complaint that this was due to her disabilities.
On 26 August 2021, the landlord visited the resident to inspect the property and record the outstanding repairs.
On the same day, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting to escalate her complaint to stage two of its process. She claimed that the non-standard fittings disclaimer she had been asked to sign during the mutual exchange process had been inappropriately amended to include the references to installation of a stairlift which she perceived as discriminatory. The resident advised that due to the lack of stairlift, she had no access to the upstairs of the property, which included the bedrooms and the only bathroom.
The resident further stated that she believed the landlord had attempted to use the disclaimer to make her responsible for the outstanding repairs to the property. She claimed the landlord had been aware of the repair issues since her tenancy began but had failed to address them, and had then attempted to obstruct her access to its complaints process causing further delays in resolving the issues.
On 26 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and this Service to complain that the landlord had not acknowledged or investigated her request to escalate her complaint to stage two.
On 27 September 2021, the landlord logged multiple repairs for the property. These included all of the repairs listed in the resident’s original complaint (bar the staining to the kitchen/diner, which the landlord’s notes advised the resident would contact it to confirm a convenient time to decorate) as well as renewing the garden fence and a cracked rain water pipe.
On 29 September 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm it had escalated her complaint to stage two of its process on 27 September 2021 and would respond by 18 October 2021.
On 22 November 2021, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response. It apologised for the delay in responding and stated this was due to it having to obtain information from the resident’s previous landlord. The landlord said that:
1. It completes an inspection as part of its mutual exchange process and, in general terms, the incoming resident accepts the property in the condition it is left in. However, the landlord would attend to essential repairs raised.
2. It had made enquiries with the resident’s former landlord about the suitability of the property prior to accepting the exchange, and extracts of its response had been included in the disclaimer of 19 November 2020.
3. It did not accept that the disclaimer was discriminatory, as it was clear the resident intended to arrange and fund any necessary adaptations herself.
4. There was no evidence that the resident had been forced to sign this disclaimer, and she had been free to refuse to do so, or to challenge the wording.
5. It had attended and inspected the property and raised required repairs on 27 September 2021.
6. It had been delayed in completing the repairs due to a shortage of staff and materials owing to the covid-19 pandemic, and a subsequent backlog of works. It was partially upholding her complaint due to these delays.

Assessment and findings

Requirement for the resident to sign a disclaimer

The landlord’s justification for the disclaimer has basis in its procedure for assessing mutual exchange applications. This states that, where the landlord has highlighted that a property has non-standard fixtures and fittings, it must “complete a MX Non-Standard Fittings letter and send to the person who will move into that property should the exchange proceed”. It explains that this ensures that the incoming resident is aware that the landlord “will not be responsible for the maintenance or replacement of the non-standard fittings and that they accept the property in its current condition”.
The letter sent to the resident on 19 November 2020 lists no non-standard fixtures or fittings that were present in the property and the stage two complaint response also confirms that “the property did not contain any non-standard fittings”. Based upon this, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord produced the letter in order to have the resident sign in agreement to self funding any stairlift required in the property. This was not the intended purpose of such a disclaimer and has no basis in the landlord’s procedure.
Under the Equality Act (2010), the landlord has a duty to make reasonable adjustments to its properties for disabled residents, such as installing a stairlift. Section 20(7) of the Act prohibits the landlord from requiring the resident to pay any of its associated costs in complying with this duty. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord to require the resident to sign a disclaimer committing to self-funding a stairlift in the property.
Whilst the landlord stated in its stage two complaint response that the resident had been free to refuse to sign the disclaimer, or challenge the wording, this was not apparent in the letter itself, and it was reasonable for her to believe that the exchange would not proceed should she have refused to sign.
The resident has described a high level of detriment from the lack of stairlift in the property to this Service. She stated she has been unable to access the bedrooms and bathroom and, due to this, has had to sleep in the kitchen/diner and wash using a bucket of water drawn from the kitchen sink.
However, the resident agreed to the mutual exchange in the knowledge that the property was not suitably adapted to her needs. The email from her previous landlord, quoted in this disclaimer letter, stated that “she has advised that the property is big enough at the moment for her to cope downstairs” and that it had “relayed the information about Wandsworth having a long wait time on any adaptions”.
Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the landlord to ensure that its properties allocated, including via mutual exchange, are suitable for the needs of its residents. It has clearly failed to do so in this instance.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord attempted to enforce the terms of the disclaimer or obstructed the installation of a stairlift. Indeed, in its response to the enquiry from the resident’s MP, it stated it would contact the resident to advise her on the process for arranging an occupational therapist’s assessment.
However, it is likely that the resident’s belief that she would be required to self fund such an installation may have dissuaded her from arranging this herself at an earlier date, prolonging her living in unsuitable conditions.

Handling of repair reports

The checklist completed on the day the mutual exchange took effect evidences that the landlord was aware of repairs required to the kitchen door and glass above the bedroom door. The resident stated in her formal complaint that she had also reported outstanding repairs, including providing pictures, “numerous times” with no action taken by the landlord.
In its response to the resident’s MP in March 2021, the landlord stated it was aware of outstanding repairs to the property and working to complete these. Neither the MP enquiry, nor the landlord’s response, specified the nature of any repairs referred to. Had the landlord taken reasonable steps in contacting the resident following the MP enquiry, it could have established full details of outstanding repairs, some of which were subsequently not logged by it until many months later.
Once the resident made her formal complaint, the landlord contacted her on 23 June 2021 in an attempt to arrange to inspect the property and log any outstanding repairs. The resident requested an alternative member of staff to complete the inspection, and internal emails show the landlord reasonably attempted to accommodate this request. However, the inspection was then not arranged until 26 August 2021. The landlord admitted this failure in its stage one complaint response and offered an appropriate apology.
Repair logs provided by the landlord show that the repairs identified at the inspection were not logged on its system until 27 September 2021 – a month after the inspection was carried out. The landlord did not provide any explanation as to why this unreasonable delay occurred.
The resident described the outstanding repairs impacting her enjoyment of her home in both her original complaint, and correspondence with this Service. She said that the scaffolding left on the front of the property blocked daylight into her living room and prevented her from maintaining the front garden which became overgrown, whilst the back garden was not safe for her to access owing to the hazardous decking and brickwork which needed removing. She stated that the issues with the exterior walls were also causing dirt/earth ingress to the property.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about delays in processing her repairs at both stage one and two of its complaints process. However, the landlord’s stage two complaint response attributed delays in completing repair works to ongoing labour and materials shortages and a backlog of works related to the covid-19 pandemic. Whilst such issues undoubtedly existed at this time, and contributed to delays, the landlord failed to acknowledge its own failings which were a significant contributor.
The resident has stated a belief that repairs were not completed to the property due to the landlord attempting to use the disclaimer signed during the mutual exchange process to abdicate responsibility for them. This Service has seen no evidence to support this. The landlord did not dispute its repairs responsibilities at any point and the delays in completing repairs appear to have been caused by inaction rather than any such conscious decision.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted her formal complaint on 21 June 2021. This was acknowledged by the landlord two days later which advised her it would respond outside of its complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy contains no such provision for it to exercise this discretion and it was therefore inappropriate not to immediately progress the complaint to stage one of its process. This decision caused an unnecessary delay in the resident navigating the landlord’s complaints process, and having the underlying issues properly addressed.
The landlord confirmed via email on 15 July 2021 that it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage one of its process at her request. It promised a response “as soon as possible” and failed to appropriately advise the resident of the 20 working days timescale contained in its complaints policy.
In her contact with this Service on 19 July 2021, the resident claimed she had been denied access to the landlord’s complaints procedure and it had failed to respond to her requests to escalate her complaint to stage one. However, as the landlord had already confirmed the escalation some days prior, this appears to have been a misunderstanding.
The landlord’s stage one response letter was provided on 16 August 2021. This was just outside of its 20 working day target with no evidence provided of such an extension being agreed with the resident. The landlord offered an appropriate apology for this minor delay.
The stage one response partially upheld the resident’s complaint, acknowledging that there had been “clear delays” in processing the resident’s repair request. The landlord apologised for the failure, and showed learning in committing to reminding relevant staff of the need to action repair requests in a timely manner and keep residents informed. However, it failed to offer the resident any redress, or show consideration for the time and trouble she had taken pursuing the matter.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s process on 26 August 2021. She contacted this Service on 26 September 2021 to advise that she had not had her requested acknowledged or responded to, and the landlord has provided no evidence to the contrary. The landlord’s stage two complaint response was not issued until 22 November 2021, well outside of the 25 working days target contained within its policy.
The landlord apologised for this delay, and stated it had been due to requiring additional information from the resident’s previous landlord. However, it has not provided any evidence as to why this was necessary (the only information relating to the previous landlord within the response are quotes taken directly from the disclaimer letter of 19 November 2020), or that it advised the resident of the need to extend the timescale, as its complaints policy requires.
The stage two complaint response repeated the finding at stage one, in partially upholding the resident’s complaint on the basis that repairs had been delayed. However, the landlord again failed to make a reasonable offer of redress for its failure to complete repairs that, by this point, had been brought to its attention as a formal complaint five months previously and were still outstanding.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its requirement for the resident to sign the disclaimer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s repair reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s disclaimer had no basis in policy and was inappropriate in attempting to pass the cost of reasonable adjustments on to the resident.
The landlord unreasonably delayed in inspecting the property and in logging and completing the resident’s repairs even after she had raised a formal complaint regarding them. Although the landlord acknowledged the delays, it did not fully recognise the extent to which its own failures contributed to these.
The landlord inappropriately delayed the resident’s complaint by attempting to deal with it outside of the formal process. It then failed to meet its response timescales at both stage one and stage two without advising the resident or agreeing extensions and did not offer the resident any redress despite partially upholding her complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £700 composed of:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its maladministration in requiring her to sign the disclaimer;
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its maladministration in its handling of her repair reports;
  3. £150 for the time and trouble caused to her by its maladministration in complaint handling.
2. Apologise in writing to the resident for the maladministration identified in this report.
3. Review its procedure for assessing mutual exchange applications to ensure clarity around processes for incoming residents requiring adaptations to the property.
4. Make enquiries with the borough’s ‘home improvement agency’ (if it has not done so already) to establish:
  1. Whether it has completed an assessment at the resident’s home;
  1. Whether any required adaptions can be made to the property;
  2. Whether it would be appropriate to move the resident to a more suitable property within the landlord’s stock by management transfer.

The landlord should write to the resident and update her as to the outcome of these enquiries and any next steps.

The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.