London Borough of Wandsworth (202324260)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324260

Wandsworth Council

11 November 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of tap repairs and the resident’s request for compensation for these.
   2. Response to the resident’s reports of poor conduct and communication from its contractor.

Background

2. The resident is the secure tenant of the landlord, which is a council. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
3. From 28 June 2022, the resident was in discussion with the landlord’s contractor about reimbursement for excess gas costs she said was caused by a leaking bathroom sink tap it had installed. On 5 July 2022, the contractor asked for details of her boiler and energy provider to assess her potential energy costs.
4. On 5 July 2022 the contractor attended to fix the sink taps. They temporarily fitted lever taps. The contractor returned later to install new taps which matched the originals which the resident declined. The next day the resident told the contractor she was unhappy that it had not replaced the bath taps. She said she reported both repairs at the same time and was unhappy that the bath and basin taps were now mismatched. On 11 July 2023 the resident reported the bath taps to the landlord, and it arranged to replace the taps.
5. The resident submitted her gas statement to the contractor on 12 July 2023 which the contractor acknowledged on 19 July 2023. It asked her what she was seeking in compensation. The resident asked for compensation for the distress caused by its refusal to replace her bath taps as well as reimbursement of her energy costs caused by the dripping sink taps. The contractor replied to say she had not answered its question and asked her again what she was seeking.
6. On 25 July 2023, the contractor told the resident that it would not pay her compensation. It said it had reviewed the energy statement she had provided, and this had shown that her energy costs had reduced since the installation of the taps. The contractor also said that a dripping tap would not have caused her boiler to ignite and consume energy. The resident attempted to raise a complaint with the contractor, and it directed her to the landlord.
7. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 26 July 2023, in which she forwarded the emails between herself and the contractor. She said the contractor’s communication had been “poor” and “rude”. She wanted £1,000 compensation for the distress caused by the contractor’s communication. The resident also wanted reimbursement for excess energy costs caused by the dripping tap, and for distress caused by the contractor’s refusal to replace her bath taps.
8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 11 August 2023. It said its review of the contractor’s email communication had found that the communication had been prompt and professional. The landlord set out a chronology of events and said the contractor had attended promptly when the resident reported faults. It agreed with the contractor’s opinion that there was no evidence of excess energy costs caused by the tap. The landlord considered that there was therefore no basis for it to award compensation to the resident.
9. The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 22 August 2023. She said that she disagreed with the landlord’s chronology of events. She said the contractor’s communication had intimidated her, been disrespectful and had left her feeling unsafe and anxious in her home.
10. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 20 September 2023.It acknowledged that she disputed its account of events and asked her to provide details of what she disputed so that it could investigate further. It also asked her for more information on how she been intimidated by the contractor. The landlord maintained that there was no evidence of inappropriate behaviour from its contractor or a failure of its service.
11. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman on 16 October 2023 that she still sought compensation for her energy costs, and for distress caused by the landlord’s contractor. On 22 August 2024 she confirmed that she did not discuss the complaint any further with the landlord.  

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of tap repairs and the resident’s request for compensation for these.

12. The landlord’s conditions of tenancy confirm that it is “responsible for drains, basins, sinks, baths and toilets”. It therefore had an obligation to keep the taps in the property in good working order. The landlord’s repairs procedure is silent on its standard timeframes for completing repairs. However, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to attend and make safe an emergency repair – one which presents a hazard to people or the property – within 24 hours. For non-emergency repairs, we would expect the landlord to complete these within 4 weeks. This is based on the standard across the industry.
13. The landlord’s corporate complaints guide provides for payment of financial remedy to a resident. This is when its complaint investigation finds that it has caused a resident to experience inconvenience, financial loss, or additional expense.
14. On the face of it, the landlord was reasonable in concluding that it was not required to award the resident compensation based on the issues she raised. The resident’s energy bill did not evidence an increase in energy usage. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its suitably qualified staff, in this case the contractor, to conclude that a leaking tap would not have caused her boiler to consume energy. There was no evidence that her bath taps were faulty and in need of replacement. Despite this, and in excess of its obligations, the landlord arranged for the bath taps to be replaced when the resident raised this with it directly. Based on this, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude it did not need to compensate for any failing.
15. However, there were failings in the landlord’s investigation of the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s stage 1 response included a chronology which set out the repair events. As set out above, the landlord would have been expected to complete the repairs to the resident’s taps within 28 days. While the landlord appeared to respond within reasonable timeframes to carry out the repairs, the landlord has not provided evidence, such as repair logs, to substantiate that it handled the tap repairs reasonably. The Ombudsman has asked twice for the landlord’s records of its tap repairs. Despite this, the records it provided were incomplete and do not support the entire chronology of events in its complaint responses – its evidence only confirmed that it raised work to replace the bath taps on 17 July 2023. This was a failure of the landlord’s record-keeping.
16. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet it has not demonstrated this. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is a dispute and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
17. In this case the resident disputed the landlord’s version of events in her complaint escalation request on 22 August 2023. In her email to the contractor, on 19 July 2023, the resident said that she first reported having issues with the taps in October 2022. Neither the landlord nor its contractor addressed this. Due to the landlord’s failure to provide comprehensive records, we cannot conclude that its handling of repairs to the resident’s reported tap issues was timely and reasonable.
18. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that, if any aspect of a complaint is unclear, a landlord should clarify this with the resident in its investigation of the complaint. There was no evidence that landlord did this. While it did ask the resident, in its final response, to provide further information about what she disputed, it should have clarified this with her beforehand.
19. The landlord, therefore, failed to evidence that it had considered the resident’s complaint about its handling of tap repairs and her request for compensation appropriately. This amounts to service failure. To put this right, it must contact the resident to confirm the details of her disputed events, investigate this, and provide a response to her. If this investigation finds evidence of failings by the landlord or its contractor, it should compensate her in line with its corporate complaints guide.
20. The landlord must also pay the resident £100 compensation for her inconvenience caused by its lack of response to this aspect of her complaint. This award is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, which provides for awards of £100 to £600 compensation where there has been a failure by the landlord which had an adverse effect on the resident, although this may not be permanent.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of poor conduct and communication from its contractor

21. The contractor is employed by the landlord. Therefore, it was required to uphold the standards set out in the landlord’s ‘code of conduct of employees’. This says that employees are required to “treat others with respect” and “perform their duties with honesty, integrity, impartiality and objectivity”.
22. The Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint about its contractor, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For complaints about the conduct of staff and contractors, landlords should carry out an investigation and make an informed decision based on its findings. This would normally involve interviewing the individuals involved and consulting any other available information such as correspondence, repair logs and witness statements where applicable.
23. As the resident’s complaint was about the tone of emails between herself and the contractor, it was reasonable that the landlord reviewed these in its investigation. Its complaint responses maintained that its contractor’s communication had been timely, accurate and polite. The Ombudsman has viewed these emails and, objectively, there was no evidence of inappropriate or inaccurate communication.
24. The Ombudsman does not dispute that the resident felt distressed by the contractor’s communication. However, feeling distressed or intimidated can be a subjective response which varies between individuals. We are only able to determine whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s report of being intimidated and distressed based on the objective evidence available.
25. Given there was no evidence that the contractor communicated inappropriately, it was reasonable for the landlord to say this in its complaint responses. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to identify ways in which the contractor’s communication could be improved. The contractor’s communication was occasionally direct, which may lead to misunderstanding. On 19 July 2023, the contractor asked what compensation the resident was seeking. She replied to this, however it responded to say that she had not answered its question and repeated its earlier question. It could have made it clear exactly what it wanted the resident to clarify.
26. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about the contractor’s communication. The landlord should consider reminding its staff and contractors of the importance of communicating clearly and sensitively with residents to help prevent misunderstandings in the future.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of tap repairs and the resident’s request for compensation for these.
    2. No maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of poor conduct and communication from its contractor.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

28. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the inconvenience caused to her by its failure to fully respond to her concerns about the tap repairs.
    2. Contact the resident to clarify which aspects of the chronology of events she disputes, investigate these, and provide a written response to her. If it identifies failings, it must compensate her in line with its policy.

Recommendations

29. The landlord should communicate with its staff and contractors to remind them of the importance of clear and considerate communication when dealing with residents.