Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202451140)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202451140

Wandle Housing Association Limited

22 July 2025


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of subsidence, including a sloping floor.
    2. Guttering repairs.
    3. The resident’s report of a damaged sink.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a flat owned by the landlord. She lives in the property with her child who has autism. The resident informed the landlord that both occupants are registered disabled, and she has several vulnerabilities including chronic pain syndrome.
  2. On 10 January 2025, the resident complained to the landlord. She said a surveyor reported that her bathroom floor was dipping during a stock condition survey in December 2024, and no one had contacted her about it. She also said her property was subsiding and had broken guttering.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 January 2025. It said it had referred the suspected subsidence and sloping flooring to its major repairs team who would appoint a surveyor to investigate. It confirmed it had raised a job with its repairs team concerning the guttering, and the team would contact the resident directly to arrange an appointment.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 February 2025 stating that she wanted the guttering repaired that week. She also said she was concerned about the condition of her property due to the suspected subsidence and sloping flooring.
  5. On 13 March 2025, the landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint procedure. It explained that while there was a “bowed floor” in the bathroom and suspected subsidence, it did not deem the property as unsafe to live in. It confirmed its surveyor was due to attend on 14 March 2025 to assess the damage and provide a repair quotation for its buildings insurer to consider. It apologised for the delay in clearing the gutters and offered £50 compensation.
  6. The landlord’s final complaint response dissatisfied the resident and so she referred her complaint to this Service. To resolve matters, she has asked it to permanently rehouse her.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the way the landlord managed the issues caused significant stress and impacted the health of both occupants. The Ombudsman empathises with her. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about impact to health. This is largely because it can appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
  2. Within the resident’s communication with us, she referenced damage and repairs that formed part of an insurance claim. She expressed dissatisfaction about several issues, including the timeliness of the claim and communication. We cannot consider complaints which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. The insurer is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Therefore, we cannot consider complaints about it or its appointed agents, including its loss adjuster. The independent body for complaints about insurers is the Financial Ombudsman Service. Nonetheless, we have considered the actions of the landlord.
  3. We may only investigate matters which have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. After it issued its final complaint response, the resident expressed additional concerns about the progression of her insurance claim. It is open for her to contact it directly and make a separate complaint if she is unhappy about matters that occurred post-stage 2. This case considers events from the date of the stock condition survey in December 2024 up to the landlord’s final complaint response dated 13 March 2025.


Assessment and findings

Subsidence, including the sloping floor

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  2. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will conduct major repairs within 90 days, unless explicitly agreed with the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman recognises that investigations and repairs concerning suspected subsidence can be complex and will often incur delays while the landlord, insurer, and experts involved decide the best way to proceed. This is why it must manage investigations effectively and with a sense of urgency, to identify the cause of ground movement as soon as possible.
  5. The landlord has provided a spreadsheet containing the data from its stock condition survey in December 2024 and photos. Within the spreadsheet, there is a note dated 5 December 2024 stating, “floor caving in bathroom”. There is no reference to suspected subsidence within this document. After we examined the repairs history, we observe there is no evidence that it arranged or considered further works to the bathroom floor at this time. It therefore missed an opportunity here to investigate the issues at the earliest opportunity.
  6. Communication records show the resident contacted the landlord on 6 and 10 January 2025 requesting an update concerning the floor. It told her that the bathroom had life left until 2052 and it would continue to monitor it with future surveys. She was unhappy with this and explained the sloping floor was a hazard to her and her son, both of whom were disabled. She also said there were cracks outside of the property and the house was subsiding.
  7. Following this, the landlord demonstrated that it referred the issues to its major works team and informed the resident that it would investigate the issues in collaboration with its insurance team. It summarised this within its stage 1 complaint response and said it would follow up with her by 14 February 2025. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  8. The resident chased for a response from the major works team during early February 2025. The landlord updated her by email on 12 February 2025 setting out the current position with its insurer. It explained the insurer’s loss adjuster had not yet contacted it and it would follow this up. We have not seen copies of communication between the landlord and the insurer, and therefore we are unable to comment on this.
  9. We recognise the landlord tried to manage the resident’s expectations in its update of 12 February 2025 by explaining, “subsidence claims can take some time to investigate thoroughly. The process involves detailed assessments to ensure that all aspects of the issue are properly understood and addressed.” It also called her 2 days later to explain the insurer would send out a structural surveyor. Based on the limited information available to the landlord at this time, we are minded that its update was adequate.
  10. On 25 February 2025, the resident expressed further concerns to the landlord about the risk of the bathroom floor collapsing into the property below and the habitability of the property. We find it responded appropriately by making enquires with its staff who had previously attended and arranging for a further visit by a surveyor.
  11. The surveyor attended on 14 March 2025 and reported the property was safe to live in. They stated, “there is no eminent[sic] danger though there is a slight slope of about 15mm to 20mm out to both bathroom and the kitchen”. While we appreciate the resident’s concerns, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified surveyor. We have seen no evidence that the property was uninhabitable.
  12. The landlord recorded on its system on 12 March 2025 that its insurer suspected that the claim value was under its policy excess. It asked the landlord to obtain a repair quotation or provide a report from its internal surveyor to establish the costs. It updated the resident accordingly within its final complaint response and arranged a surveyor’s appointment for 14 March 2025, as referenced above.
  13. We understand the progression of the matter dissatisfied the resident, particularly as she was concerned about the impact on her disabled child. She also felt the information provided by the landlord was conflicting. However, the evidence available demonstrates it acted within a reasonable timeframe to obtain the information the insurer requested. This enabled the insurer to progress its assessment of claim. Furthermore, records demonstrate the landlord adequately explained matters to her based on the information available to it at the time.
  14. In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay contacting the resident after the stock condition survey and acknowledged that she had to follow up for answers. It recognised a staff member initially dismissed her concerns in January 2025 and there were instances where it failed to return calls. While the landlord referenced and apologised for its shortcomings, we find it would have been appropriate to also offer financial redress in view of the failings identified.
  15. Our remedies guidance suggests compensation awards of £100 to £600 are appropriate where there was a failure that adversely affected a resident. We find £100 compensation is proportionate in the circumstances.
  16. We understand that following the landlord’s final complaint response, the insurer received evidence that the claim likely would exceed the policy excess. As such, the insurer appointed a loss adjuster to investigate. The matter is currently ongoing. While we are not considering events that occurred after the stage 2 complaint response, we remind the landlord of the importance of keeping the resident updated with the progression of the claim.

Guttering

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states it will complete routine repairs within 28 days, unless explicitly agreed with the resident.
  2. We have seen that the resident reported leaking and broken guttering to the landlord by email on 10 January 2025. The repair history for the property shows it raised a work order for the repair on 17 January 2025 with an external contractor. It set a “due date” for the job of 14 February 2025.
  3. The resident chased for a response on 3 February 2025, and so the landlord chased the contractor for an update. We have seen no evidence of a response. An internal note dated 4 February states the appointed contractor handled drainage issues. From the evidence available, it is unclear whether they also dealt with guttering. As such, we cannot conclude there was an oversight here.
  4. We find the landlord acted pragmatically by appointing a different contractor on 4 February 2025. Records show it asked them to complete the repair urgently. Contractors attended on 8 February 2025. The landlord provided a copy of the completion report and photos. The contractor said that “due to no soakaway drain, the downpipe drains into the front garden flooding the area.” They recorded on the form that they did not identify any additional work or issues.
  5. The resident holds the view that the guttering needs follow-on works. However, the completion report provided by the contractor does not reflect this. A landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its appointed contractors and staff. However, it is a shortcoming that it has not clarified its position to her, despite update requests.
  6. While contractors cleared the guttering and remedied the blockage, the landlord may need to further consider the drainage of rainwater at the property. When we spoke to the resident, she said this may be considered as part of the subsidence claim. We have not seen evidence of this. As such, we have ordered it to write to her and set out its intention concerning potential follow-on works.
  7. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said the resident initially reported the guttering issue on 10 December 2024. It has not provided a copy of her initial report. The earliest request we have seen for a guttering repair was 10 January 2025 in an email. In any event, it responded at stage 2 by apologising for the repair delay and offering £50 compensation.
  8. After considering the impact on the resident and the period involved, we have considered that the amount offered in compensation is proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance. However, due to the lack of communication concerning follow-on works, we have made a failure finding instead of reasonable redress.
  9. Clarification about follow–on works remains outstanding. Thus, the required resolution at this stage is not more monetary compensation. We, therefore, have not ordered further compensation but have ordered specific action.

Sink

  1. Within the resident’s complaint to this Service, she referenced a damaged bathroom sink. When we requested information about this issue, the landlord said it had no evidence of her reporting a damaged sink.
  2. While the resident did not reference the sink within her initial complaint; the landlord broadly mentioned it within the stage 2 response by stating, “I discussed your bathroom floor and sink with our major repairs team”. It also referenced the sink within an internal email from 6 March 2025. Therefore, we are satisfied it was aware of the issue and included it within her stage 2 letter.
  3. We find the landlord failed to address the report of the damaged sink appropriately in its stage 2 complaint response as it did not provide a conclusion or set out its position. Further, we have seen no evidence that it raised a work order to assess the sink or responded in line with the timescale set out in its repair policy. This was a shortcoming in its repairs provision.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
    1.  The resident’s reports of subsidence, including a sloping floor.
    2. Guttering repairs.
    3. The resident’s report of a damaged sink.


 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation. This comprises:
      1. £50 previously offered by it for its handling of the guttering repair.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of subsidence.
      3. £50 for the delay responding to her report of a damaged sink.
    2. Write to the resident to set out its position regarding rainwater drainage and the bathroom sink.