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

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202304463)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304463

Wandle Housing Association Limited

28 January 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repair to his hallway skirting board.
  2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He succeeded the tenancy for his 1-bedroom flat in April 2019.
  2. On 28 June 2022 the resident told the landlord that the skirting boards in his hallway were cracking and coming away from the wall. The landlord visited on 14 July 2022. It noted that there was damp in the area that needed further investigation before it carried out the repairs to the skirting boards.
  3. On 18 July 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said the repairs to the skirting boards had not been completed. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 26 July 2022. It said when it visited on 14 July 2022 it had noticed that the area by the skirting boards was affected by damp. It advised the resident that it had now arranged for a manager to carry out a further inspection on 2 August 2022.
  4. On 3 August 2022 the resident told the landlord that no one attended the appointment for the previous day. In response the landlord apologised for the missed appointment.
  5. The resident chased for an update on the matter again on 26 August 2022. He continued to chase the landlord for an appointment in September, October and December 2022. On 16 December 2022 the landlord carried out an inspection. It noted that a specialist damp and mould surveyor was required to carry out a further inspection.
  6. In January and February 2023, the resident chased the landlord for an update. The landlord told the resident that it was waiting for the relevant department to confirm what steps it needed to take following its December visit. The resident continued to chase for an update in the months that followed. He reported on 19 May 2023 that the landlord failed to attend an appointment for that day to inspect the damp.
  7. On 6 September 2023 the resident escalated his complaint with assistance of this Service. He said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the internal and external repair work in his flat.
    2. his reports of damp.
    3. remedial work to his garden following a tree removal.
  8. On 8 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. it had asked its contractor to carry out a [damp] survey of the resident’s flat and provide its findings and recommendations.
    2. it had found that it acted within its policies and standard processes. However, it did get it wrong”.
    3. it would arrange for the resident’s garden to be inspected.
  9. The evidence shows that subsequently the damp survey was carried out and the work was completed in mid February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident told this Service that he has raised several repairs over many years with the landlord. He has stated that the landlord has failed to resolve them.  While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord should be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns in the first instance. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs to his hallway skirting boards

  1. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy states that it would:
    1. complete routine appointments within 28 days.
    2. compensate residents for missed appointments in line with its complaints and compensation policy.
  2. The landlord’s April 2023 damp and mould policy stated that “where a tenant reports damp and mould in their property, it would act in line with its repairs and maintenance policy”.
  3. In his formal complaint on 18 July 2022, the resident told the landlord that it had not carried out any work on the hallway skirting boards. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that when it attended to repair the skirting boards on 14 July 2022 it had found that there were damp issues. Therefore, a further inspection was required. This was reasonable.
  4. We have not been provided with any contemporaneous records relating to the inspection. Therefore, it is unclear whether the landlord had explained its findings to the resident at the time of the visit. Informing the resident of any further investigations, and likely follow up works along with timescales of when the work would be completed at that time would have been reasonable. This would have demonstrated that the landlord had taken care to manage the resident’s expectations.
  5. The landlord also said that it would inspect the damp on 2 August 2022. However, the resident informed it on 3 August that it failed to attend.
  6. In its response on 12 August, the landlord explained that it was unable to find the appointment on its system. Given that its stage 1 complaint response outlined the appointment details, that the landlord could not find the appointment on its system is indicative of a record keeping issue. Our May 2023 Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight report states that failing to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action.
  7. In this case the landlord’s failure to properly record the appointment that itself had set meant that it missed its own appointment to inspect the damp in the resident’s hallway. That was unreasonable. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he expected the landlord to attend as it stated that it would. It also caused him time and trouble as he had to inform the landlord that it did not attend and request a new appointment.
  8. It is noted that the landlord apologised to the resident for the missed appointment which was appropriate. However, its repair and maintenance policy states that it would compensate for missed appointments in line with its complaints and compensation policies. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have compensated the resident for the missed appointment. There is no evidence to show that it did. The landlord’s policies do not provide a specific compensation amount for missed appointments. Therefore, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance an order has been made for the landlord to offer the resident £50 compensation for the 2 August 2022 missed appointment.
  9. Also, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not rearrange the appointment at this time. The reason that it did not is unclear. Nonetheless, this caused the resident time and trouble as he had to chase it for an appointment on 26 August 2022 and at the beginning of September 2022. It was not until 14 September 2022 that the landlord raised an order to inspect the damp. This was approximately a month after its missed appointment. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy stated that it would carry out routine repairs within 28 days. Therefore, that the landlord raised another order approximately a month after its missed appointment meant that it was unable to meet its own policy timescales. Subsequently, it also delayed resolving the matter further.
  10. When it raised the order on 14 September 2022, the landlord told the resident that it would make an appointment with him within 5 working days. On 22 September 2022, the resident chased the landlord for an update as he had not received an appointment. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email, there is no evidence to suggest that it followed through with making the appointment at that time.
  11. The resident told the landlord on 21 October 2022 that an operative had attended that day, but he had missed them because the landlord had not informed him of the appointment. This Service has been provided with the landlord’s repair appointment notifications to the resident for this investigation. However, there is no evidence demonstrating that it informed the resident of this particular appointment. Therefore, whether it did so is unclear. If it had not, this would have likely exacerbated the resident’s frustration and distress. This is because he had been chasing the landlord for an appointment to inspect the damp for approximately 2 months at this point. Missing this appointment meant that he incurred further time and trouble chasing the landlord for a new appointment. Causing further delay in resolving the matter.
  12. On 16 December 2022 the landlord inspected the damp and noted that a specialist damp surveyor was required to carry out a further inspection. There is no evidence that the landlord took any timely steps to act on this recommendation at this time. That was unreasonable.
  13. In January, February and March 2023 the resident continued to chase the landlord for an update. It is unclear whether the landlord responded in January. However, in February and March it told the resident that it was chasing the relevant team for an update regarding the specialist inspection. While this may have been the case, we do not have contemporaneous records to demonstrate that it did. This is a record keeping failure.
  14. Even if it had done so, there is no evidence to suggest that it took any further timely steps to progress the matter at that time. For example, there is no evidence that it carried out a meaningful review of the December 2022 recommendations or arranged for a specialist inspection at this time. The reason that it did not progress the matter at this time is unclear. However, given that the inspection was approximately 3 months prior, that it did not was unreasonable.
  15. This delayed resolving the damp and the repairs to the skirting boards further. The Ombudsman’s October 2021 damp and mould spotlight report stated that it is imperative that residents are not left living with damp for an extended period. In this case, the landlord was aware that there was damp in the resident’s hallway in July 2022, and it identified that a specialist was required to inspect further in December 2022. However, at this point, in March 2023, approximately 8 months on from its initial inspection, it still had not reasonably progressed the matter.  This meant that the resident was left with damp in his hallway for a prolonged period of time. There is no evidence to suggest that this delay was unavoidable either.
  16. The resident chased the landlord for an update again in April 2023.  The evidence suggests that another appointment was made for 19 May 2023. On the same day the resident told the landlord that it did not attend. The landlord told the resident that it had forwarded the matter to the relevant team who would look into the matter. There is no evidence to suggest that it investigated the issue or updated the resident. The landlord had identified a potential missed appointment that would have likely caused the resident time and inconvenience. Therefore, that there is no evidence to demonstrate that it meaningfully investigated the matter or provided the resident with a response to his concern is unreasonable.
  17. There is also no evidence to suggest that it rescheduled the appointment. This meant the resident had to chase it again for an update on 28 July 2023. The landlord booked an appointment for 4 September 2023. The evidence suggests that the resident was unable to make the appointment.
  18. The resident escalated his complaint on 6 September 2023 and on 14 September, the landlord attempted to visit the resident. However, it was unable to gain access. On the same day the resident told the landlord that he was not in for the visit because it did not inform him of the appointment. The evidence provided does not demonstrate that it did either. It is unclear whether the landlord responded or investigated the resident’s concerns. This was the second time that the resident told the landlord that it had not informed him of an appointment. Therefore, it was unreasonable that it missed another opportunity to investigate the matter.
  19. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord told the resident that it would arrange for its contractor to carry out a damp survey and provide recommendations. This was carried out in early November 2023. The resident has told this Service that the work was completed in mid-February 2024. It is unclear what the scope of works entailed. However, the resident’s original repair to his hallway skirting boards and the landlord’s identified damp in the area went unresolved for over a year. That was unreasonable and a significant departure from the landlord’s repair and maintenance policy timescales.
  20. Overall, our investigation has found that the landlord failed to:
    1. attend the appointment on 2 August 2022.
    2. book appointments in a timely manner to investigate the damp as it stated it would on several occasions.
    3. demonstrate that it had reasonably investigated the resident’s concerns that it had not informed him of appointments that were subsequently missed.
    4. reasonably respond to the resident’s requests for updates on several occasions.
    5. arrange for a specialist survey following its December 2022 visit in a timely manner.
  21. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repair to his skirting boards in his hallway.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that:
    1. a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service and actions or lack of action by the organisation.
    2. to make sure complaints are resolved as quickly as possible, it “may choose to manage any report of dissatisfaction as a complaint, even where a customer has not explicitly asked [it] to do so.”
    3. it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. In November 2022 the resident told the landlord that he was dissatisfied with its handling of his repairs to his hallway skirting boards on several occasions. He said that “nothing was being done” and asked his correspondence to be passed onto the landlord’s chief executive.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it may choose to manage any report of dissatisfaction as a complaint. In this case, the resident made his dissatisfaction with its handling of his hallway repairs clear. Therefore, it would have been appropriate, and in accordance with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) for the landlord to have considered his concerns as a complaint. This could have included raising a new complaint or escalating the resident’s July 2022 stage 1 complaint. There is no evidence that it did. This was a failing.
  4. Furthermore, the available evidence suggests that it also did not respond to the resident about his concerns that it had not resolved his hallway repairsThe reason that it did not is unclear. However, that it did not was unreasonable. The landlord’s lack of response would have caused him frustration, distress and inconvenience. The landlord also failed to respond in accordance with its policy timescales. Had it done so, this would have mitigated the additional time and trouble the resident incurred by escalating his complaint with assistance this Service in September 2023.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated that it had spoken to the resident and that the complaint was about the damp and associated repairs. It was positive that the landlord engaged with the resident to gain further detail about his concerns. However, we do not have a contemporaneous record of the conversation. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have ensured that the conversation was clearly documented. Owing to the absence of evidence, the extent of the discussion is unknown.
  6. The resident also raised concerns that the landlord had not handled his garden repairs appropriately in his escalated complaint. This did not form part of his original July 2022 complaint.
  7. The Code states that if residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response as long as they are relevant, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. If the stage 1 response has already been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. In this case the stage 1 response had already been issued and the resident’s concerns about his garden was not related to the original complaint. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have enquired whether the resident wished to raise a new complaint. There is no evidence that it did. That was not in accordance with the Code.
  8. Overall, the landlord:
    1. missed opportunities to reasonably process and respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction in its handling of his hallway repairs in November 2022.
    2. failed to demonstrate that it reasonably considered and accurately addressed the resident’s concern about its handling of its “internal and external repair works” in its stage 2 complaint response.
    3. failed to demonstrate that it reasonably asked the resident whether he wanted to pursue a new complaint for his concerns about its handling of his garden repairs.
  9. Given the failings identified, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repair to his hallway skirting board.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £700 compensation, which is comprised of:
      1. £500 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its cumulative failures in its handling of the resident’s repairs to his hallway skirting boards.
      2. £50 for its missed appointment on 2 August 2022.
      3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. contact the resident to discuss whether he would like to raise a formal complaint in relation to the additional matters he had raised in his escalated complaint.