Wandsworth Council (202305918)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305918

Wandsworth Council

23 July 2024

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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repeated leaks affecting the property.
2. The resident’s reports of damage to her belongings.
3. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy at the property, a ground floor studio flat in a low-rise block. The tenancy commenced in May 2012.
The resident reported multiple leaks to the landlord from September 2016. The landlord attended on each occasion identifying and repairing various leaks within the properties and communal areas above the resident’s property. On 18 December 2022 the resident reported a leak affecting the kitchen, hallway and bathroom. The landlord attended and identified a split in a communal waste pipe which was repaired on 22 December 2022. The resident contacted the landlord in March 2023 and June 2023 regarding the outstanding repairs to make good the damage caused to her property by the leak.
The resident complained to the landlord on 21 June 2023 as she was unhappy with the damage the repeated leaks at the property had caused. She said the landlord’s contractor had told her that the most recent leak was waste water. She reported that the flat smelled and was cold and damp and that her belongings had been damaged by the leaks. She informed the landlord that her health problems had been made worse by this situation. She also complained that she had made an application to move 6 years ago but had not seen any progress.
The landlord responded informally on 27 June 2023 and the resident responded with a request to escalate the complaint on 14 July 2023. The landlord treated this as the resident’s initial complaint and responded at stage 1 on 2 August 2023. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed that the repair it had carried out on 22 December 2022 was successful. It agreed that it had taken an excessive time to fix the leak and said it had offered twice to make good the damage caused. It said the resident had declined the make good works due to her health and the level of disruption that would be caused. The landlord asked for the details of the damaged belongings so it could consider her claim for reimbursement. The landlord explained it was unable to offer a timeframe for rehousing and provided the relevant details for the team she could contact about this.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate to stage 2 on 14 August 2023. She said the property was uninhabitable and said the landlord had previously told her she would be moved out while the make good repair works were completed. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 14 September 2023. In its response it acknowledged the make good works to the property should have been completed sooner and offered £100 compensation for this delay. It offered to complete them again and said it would thoroughly inspect the properties upstairs to confirm the condition of the remaining pipework. It said the resident would receive a separate response from the Housing Assessment team regarding her housing application.
The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the matter to this Service for investigation in September 2023. In her referral she expressed her ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the matter and that she was still awaiting a move.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman may only investigate complaints that were brought to the landlord within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months. It is noted that both the resident and the landlord make reference to leaks ongoing over a period of 7 years. However, for the purpose of this investigation we will only be assessing the landlord’s handling of any leaks reported from 12 months prior to the complaint being made. That being said, it would be relevant for the landlord to have considered the history of leaks at the property in its response to the matter. Therefore earlier instances of leaks may be mentioned to provide context to the matter.
Throughout the complaint and in her contact with this Service, the resident has said the situation has had an impact on her health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more suitable to be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts and will not be assessed as part of this investigation.
The resident has informed this Service that she is unhappy with the length of time she has been waiting to be rehoused. This Service cannot consider complaints which concern matters in respect of Local Authorities’ housing allocations. Therefore we are unable to investigate the length of time it may take for suitable accommodation to become available through the Local Authority or the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme run by the Greater London Authority. Rather this investigation will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused and whether it acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances.

The resident’s reports of repeated leaks affecting the property.

The resident told this Service that she had experienced 26 leaks affecting the property since 2016. The evidence shows the resident reported leaks to the landlord on at least 8 occasions from 2017. The landlord’s repair records show multiple occasions where leaks affecting more than one property were reported by neighbours. On each occasion the landlord appears to have attended to resolve the leaks as an emergency and this is an appropriate approach. As outlined above we are assessing the landlord’s handling of the reported leaks affecting the property from June 2022 onwards whilst the history of leaks at the property provides context to the matter.
The resident contacted the landlord about a leak affecting the property on 18 December 2022. The evidence shows the landlord attended that night and traced the leak to a split in a communal waste pipe which was concealed within a neighbouring property. The pipe was replaced on 22 December 2022 and the leak stopped. The landlord’s repairs procedure does not indicate timeframes for repairs to be completed but it would be considered appropriate for leaks to be dealt with as emergencies with attendance from the landlord’s contractor on the same day. If the landlord was unable to complete the repair on its attendance on 18 December 2022 then it should have made attempts to mitigate the resident’s situation in the meantime. This could have been by completing a temporary repair or providing alternative accommodation if the situation was severe enough. It is unclear from the evidence what action the landlord took between 18 and 22 December 2022. Therefore this investigation has found that the landlord failed to reasonably mitigate the impact of the leak on the resident.
The landlord’s repairs procedure states that where additional work is required, the contractor can:
1. Complete this in good faith and request a variation to the order at a later date.
2. Inform the resident that further work is required and submit the schedule of works to the landlord for approval prior to undertaking the works.
In this case it is reasonable to conclude that, following the repair to the leak, the property may have needed to dry out prior to any make good works commencing. However there is no evidence of the contractor submitting a request to the landlord for the additional work and no evidence of the landlord following up on the works. On the contrary there is evidence of the resident chasing the landlord for an update on the repairs in March 2023 and in her initial complaint. The landlord acted reasonably on receipt of the complaint on 21 June 2023 by organising to visit the property to inspect the damage within 5 working days. However it is unreasonable that overall it took the landlord 6 months to inspect the damage and it is a failure that the onus was placed on the resident to chase the landlord before seeing action.
In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed the repair was successful on the basis that the resident had not made any further reports of leaks. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered to fully inspect the pipework in the property upstairs to ensure all issues had been resolved. Although the landlord acted reasonably in offering this, it is unclear why the landlord did not make this offer at an earlier stage. The landlord organised this inspection for October 2023, however the resident was affected by another leak before this inspection had taken place. The landlord failed to demonstrate a proactive approach to diagnosing the source of the leak and failed to consider the history of leaks in its handling of the matter.
In her initial complaint of 21 June 2023 the resident raised a concern that the landlord’s contractor had told her the water leaking into her property in December 2022 had been waste water. She also said the property “stinks” and that it was cold and damp. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for ensuring the property is fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. This includes ensuring it is free from the hazards surrounding damp and mould growth, excess cold, sanitation and drainage as outlined in the Housing Health and Rating System (HHSRS).
It is understandable that the resident was concerned that the water leaking into her property may have been waste water. It is not for this investigation to determine whether the water was contaminated or not, rather to assess the landlord’s handling of this information. The landlord failed to acknowledge this concern in either of its responses and there is no evidence of it doing so outside of the complaint process. It is unreasonable that the landlord failed to act on this information, either by means of a further inspection or by offering reassurance based on the work it had carried out.
With regard to the resident’s reports of the cold and damp conditions, the landlord further failed to acknowledge this. Although it inspected with a view to completing the repairs works, there is no evidence of it offering any interim measures such as the temporary installation of dehumidifiers to assist with any dampness. Ultimately the landlord was responsible for ensuring the property was free from damp under the HHSRS and there is no evidence of the landlord taking steps to ensure this was the case. This is a service failure and orders have been made below with regards to this.
The resident made the landlord aware of her health concerns, including a skin condition and anxiety, on a number of occasions between 2017 and 2024. As outlined earlier in the report, it is not for this investigation to draw conclusions in relation to health nor would it be expected for a landlord to do so. However the Housing Ombudsman published the spotlight report on damp and mould in January 2021 which included a recommendation for landlord’s to consider the individual circumstances of a household when managing these issues. Despite the resident telling the landlord that the damp conditions in the property were affecting her health, there is no evidence of the landlord adjusting its approach in consideration of her potential vulnerability and this is a service failure.
During its inspection of the property on 26 June 2023 the landlord offered to complete the repair works to make good the damage caused by the leak. The resident declined the repair works due to concerns around her health. There is no evidence of the landlord offering any alternatives or trying to understand her concerns. The landlord did not share the schedule of works with the resident or discuss how it could make the work less disruptive for her. This does not demonstrate a resident-centred approach. The landlord should have been able to satisfy itself that it had taken reasonable steps to attempt to complete the repairs and in this case there is no evidence of the landlord taking any steps outside of its initial offer to complete the work. This is a service failure and orders have been made below.
The landlord does not have its own compensation policy and relies on the remedies guidance issued by this Service. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered £100 in recognition of the delays in inspecting the damage caused by the leak in December 2022. This offer is in line with the remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but there is no lasting impact. This is considered proportionate financial redress for this failure.
However the landlord has failed to consider the overall distress and inconvenience or time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of its repeated failure to fully repair the leak. The impact on the resident over the years has been severe. This is evidence that the resident told the landlord she was scared to leave the property for fear of the leak returning while she was out. She has also informed the landlord in her complaint that the situation has caused her health to deteriorate. Over the years the resident has informed the landlord that the situation is making her depressed and she has described herself as “tearful” during visits from the landlord.
In its stage 1 response the landlord agreed it had taken an excessive length of time to resolve the leak once and for all. It said this was because of the concealed location of the leaking pipe as well as the COVID-19 lockdowns making resources limited and inspections more difficult. The landlord apologised for this, however it did not offer any other redress for the failures. In line with our remedies guidance it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make an offer of financial compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience or time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the failures it had identified. This is a service failure and an order has been made below.
In conclusion, although the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the overall delays in repairing the leak it failed to demonstrate a thorough and proactive approach to ensuring the issue was fully resolved. The landlord also missed the opportunity to put things right by failing to make an offer of redress proportionate to the impact incurred by the resident. This investigation has found maladministration in this matter. We have made an order for compensation for £150 which is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for instances such as this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where there was no permanent impact.

The resident’s reports of damage to her belongings.

The evidence shows the resident made the landlord aware of damage to her belongings in 2017, 2020 and 2021 as well as most recently through her complaint in June 2023. The resident told the landlord that her clothing, electrical items and flooring had all been ruined by the leaks. She said the doors and door frames were damaged and that she had got into debt replacing the damaged items.
As above, the landlord relies on the remedies guidance issued by this Service when offering redress. In the remedies guidance it is made clear that we cannot assess claims in the way an insurance provider would or award financial redress for damage to items that should be covered by insurance. However it also states that compensation can be considered as a remedy acknowledging the impact a situation has had on a resident. This would generally be under the headings of distress and inconvenience or time and trouble.
In its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord asked the resident to provide a list of the damaged items and an estimated cost so that it might consider her claim. It explained that it might refer her claim to its insurers if appropriate. There is also evidence of the landlord requesting this information in June 2021 when the resident told the landlord she could not afford to replace her flooring and wallpaper again. There is no evidence of the resident providing this information to the landlord.
Overall the landlord acted appropriately in promptly requesting this information each time the resident raised the issue. The landlord should contact the resident again with regards to her damaged items and upon receipt, if appropriate, make a referral to its insurers.
In conclusion, the landlord acted appropriately in its response to the resident’s reports of damage to her belongings and there was therefore no maladministration by the landlord in relation to this complaint.

The resident’s request to be rehoused.

It is evident this situation has been distressing for the resident. As noted above, it may help to clarify that the purpose of this investigation is not to determine whether or not the resident should be rehoused but rather whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in handling the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In regards to her request to be rehoused, the evidence shows that the resident:
1. Asked the landlord for a transfer in June 2018.
2. Contacted her local councillor and the landlord in June 2021 with a request to move.
3. Applied to the Seaside and Country Home (SSCH) scheme in June 2021. This is a scheme operated by the Greater London Authority for residents over the age of 55 looking to move out of London.
4. Complained about the lack of contact regarding her housing application in the initial complaint of 21 June 2023.
5. Declined the repair works to make good the damage from the leaks on 26 June 2023 on the basis that she would rather move out.
6. Escalated her complaint on 14 August 2023 because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the housing team had still not got in touch about her housing application.
7. Said the landlord had previously offered for her to be temporarily moved out during the make good works and queried this as part of her escalation request.
In response to the resident’s requests, the evidence shows the landlord did the following:
1. Shared information on internal transfer within the local authority and the Seaside and Country Home scheme in June 2021.
2. Told the resident she could also apply directly to another local authority in the area she wished to move to in June 2021.
3. In its informal response of 27 June 2023 it apologised for the delays and confirmed the resident’s application for rehousing within the local authority was accepted with priority band D on 11 May 2023.
4. On 2 August 2023 it clarified that the SSCH scheme is only available for people over the age of 55 so the resident’s initial application in 2021 was unsuccessful. It confirmed that her latest application of 22 November 2022 was active and said it was unable to offer a timeframe for rehousing.
5. In its stage 2 response of 14 September 2023 the landlord said the resident would receive a separate response regarding her housing application. A copy of this response has not been provided to this Service and there is no evidence of this being sent.
Although it is positive that the landlord took the above steps, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations throughout the process. There is no evidence of the landlord sharing its estimated waiting times for rehousing and it responding to the resident’s concern about being placed in band D. The landlord signposted the resident to the SSCH scheme before she was aged 55 or over. Although the landlord did tell the resident that the scheme was for over 55s, in suggesting she make an application it unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations as her application would not be accepted for another 17 months.
The landlord’s decision to issue a separate complaint response regarding her housing application and subsequent failure to issue that response has been assessed later in this report under complaint handling.
On 26 June 2023 the resident declined the landlord’s offer to make good the damage caused by the leak partly because of her desire to move out of the property. In its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord acknowledged that she had declined the works and repeated its offer to make good the damage at a time convenient to the resident. The landlord failed to confirm what efforts the resident was making to find a property outside of the local authority and it did not make it clear to the resident that it might be some time before a suitable alternative property was found through its internal transfer system. The landlord again missed the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations about timeframes for moving.
On 14 July 2023 the resident clarified that the landlord could not do the make good repair work with her living in the property because of her health condition. She said the landlord had previously offered to rehouse her temporarily while the work was done. In its responses the landlord failed to address this and simply said the resident should get in touch when she was ready for the work to be done. The landlord has not provided its policy for decants, however given the resident’s concern around her health and the long running nature of the issue it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have at least considered the resident’s request. The social housing white paper stresses the importance of resident’s voices being heard and on this occasion the landlord has failed to demonstrate it has done this.
In conclusion, although the landlord shared information about various routes to rehousing with the resident, it failed overall to manage her expectations. The landlord failed to clearly confirm the likely timescales for rehousing despite knowing the resident was choosing to live with outstanding repairs in the meantime. It also failed to consider the resident’s request for temporary accommodation. For these reasons this investigation has found service failure in this matter. We have made an order for compensation of £75 which is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for instances such as this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where there was no permanent impact.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2-stage complaint process in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time of the complaint. The Code is clear that having informal stages is not appropriate. It may be helpful to first outline the timeline of this complaint:
1. The resident sent in her initial complaint on 21 June 2023 using the landlord’s online complaint submission tool.
2. The landlord issued an informal response on 27 June 2023.
3. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 14 July 2023 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response.
4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 August 2023.
5. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 14 August 2023 and pointed out that this was the second time she was escalating the complaint.
6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 September 2023.
While this Service encourages early resolution of issues raised, this is not to be at the expense of enabling easy access to the formal complaints process or progression of a complaint. It is unclear why the landlord did not treat the resident’s contact on 21 June 2023 as a formal complaint, given it was clearly expressed as such and submitted through the landlord’s own complaint form. In issuing an informal response on 27 June 2023 the landlord put the resident through an unnecessary extra stage in the process and therefore failed to act in accordance with the Code. The landlord also failed to acknowledge or apologise for this in either of its complaint responses and this is a service failure.
In its stage 2 response of 14 September 2023 the landlord told the resident she would receive a separate response from the Housing Assessment team in regards to her complaint about her housing application and lack of contact from the housing team. A copy of this response has not been provided to this Service and there is no evidence of this being sent to the resident. This investigation has therefore had to conclude that the landlord did not issue this part of its response. In failing to issue a response on this part of the complaint the landlord has failed to fully address the resident’s concerns. The landlord failed to investigate the residents concerns and failed to use its complaints process to find a full and lasting solution for the resident.
In separating the complaint the landlord has created an additional stage in the complaints process thereby subjecting the resident to a 4-stage process. The landlord has provided no explanation for its decision to do so and has acted inappropriately in failing to follow its own policy.
The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord’s final response outlines the two following areas of learning:
1. The landlord must ensure effective and permanent repairs are carried out without delay in all instances of leaks.
2. The landlord must contact residents immediately after leaks to confirm the issue is resolved and arrange for any further repairs required.
Although it is positive that the landlord has included this learning in its complaint response it has failed to demonstrate how it will put these into practise. It has also failed to say how it will monitor this to ensure the improvements are having the desired impact on its service. The landlord should review its approach to continuous learning and improvement to ensure its learning outcomes are measurable.
In this case, the landlord’s failure to comply with the Code resulted in minor delays in issuing its final response. However the overall detriment to the resident was more significant since she did not receive a full response to her complaint. This investigation has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made an order for compensation for £150 which is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for instances such as this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where there was no permanent impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repeated leaks affecting the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Inspect the property to establish what works are needed at the property. Within 2 weeks of this, the landlord must confirm in writing to the resident, and to this Service:
  1. What remedial works will be carried out and the target date for these to be completed.
  2. The methodology for completing these works, taking the resident’s health concerns into account.
  3. What action the landlord will be taking the alleviate the resident’s living conditions while the remedial works are carried out.
3. In addition to the £100 already paid, pay the resident £375 comprising:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the leaks affecting the property.
  2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the request to be rehoused.
  3. £150 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident again with regards to her damaged items and upon receipt, if appropriate, make a referral to its insurers.