Wandle Housing Association Limited (202231083)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231083

Wandle Housing Association Limited

17 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Communal repairs.
2. Water ingress in the resident’s property.
3. The associated complaint.
We will also consider the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The property is a 2-bedroom flat located on the second floor of a 3 storey development.
On 5 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and said that the main communal door had been in a “state of disrepair for over a year”. He also raised concerns about a lack of cleaning and general maintenance of the communal areas. The landlord confirmed on the same day that it had ordered a new lock for the door, and it would replace it as soon as possible. The landlord said it would discuss the resident’s specific issues about communal areas during its next visit to the development.
On 9 August 2021, the resident reported water ingress into his property and issues with his boiler.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 13 December 2021 in relation to the reports of water ingress. It determined that it needed to:
1. Review the boiler and renew it, if necessary.
2. Overhaul the boxing in around the ducting that ran through the living room from the boiler. It should also create access panels.
3. Inspect the flue and address any problems.
4. Arrange to clear the external rainwater goods.
5. Install a filter to the rainwater goods to prevent debris entry.
The landlord acknowledged in its survey report that the problems had been long standing. It noted that the resident had made it aware of the issues, but it had failed to address them.
Between 17 March 2022 and 7 July 2022, the resident chased the landlord on several occasions via email. He asked for updates about repairs to his boiler and the flue, as water ingress continued to be an issue. On 14 July 2022, the landlord said it was waiting for management to review the survey findings and establish the next steps.
The resident chased for updates again on 25 August 2022 and 7 September 2022. The landlord confirmed that it was deciding the scope of works, and it would update the resident accordingly.
On 5 October 2022, the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of various communal repairs and maintenance. He said:
1. In June 2022, a neighbouring business had damaged a communal wall, which subsequently collapsed. The landlord had failed to address it.
2. The landlord had failed to maintain or clean communal areas.
3. The main front door to the building was damaged and did not function properly.
4. The doors on the gas meter boxes were damaged yet the landlord had failed to fix them.
5. There were issues with the drains in the bin area.
On 25 October 2022, the resident raised a further complaint. He said that:
1. The landlord knew about ongoing issues with water ingress in his property. It had agreed in 2009 to repair the flue and boiler, which it never did. The issues remained outstanding causing continued leaks.
2. Persistent leaks had damaged his boiler. He now needed to replace it at his own expense, yet the landlord had failed to address the cause of the leaks.
3. The leaks had also caused damage to his personal belongings such as electrical equipment and furniture.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 June 2023. It said that a surveyor would attend on 29 June 2023 to determine the required communal repairs. It also confirmed that the asset team would contact the resident regarding cyclical decoration works. The landlord told the resident that leaseholders would normally need to make an insurance claim for issues with the flue and boiler. However, it asked the resident to provide evidence that it had agreed to repair or replace them.
The resident escalated his complaint on 29 June 2023. He said that the survey of the communal area did not go ahead as scheduled. The surveyor attended on 9 June 2023, but the landlord had not informed the resident about the appointment, nor had it told him the outcome of the survey. The resident also confirmed that he had replaced his boiler through an insurance claim. However, the landlord had not addressed the outstanding works to the flue and rainwater goods, so the root cause of the water ingress was unresolved. He provided a copy of a previous complaint response that said that the landlord had repaired the resident’s boiler and flue. The resident said this never happened.
On 2 August 2023, the resident reported another leak. The landlord confirmed that contractors attended on 8 August 2023 and repaired a broken downpipe and gulley.
Following intervention from this Service, the landlord provided us with a copy of its stage 2 response. It confirmed that it had scheduled repairs to the communal wall, drains, and gas meter box for 18 August 2023. The response did not address the resident’s concerns about water ingress in his property or communal cleaning.
As the resident had not received a copy of the final response letter directly from the landlord, we forwarded this to him on 15 November 2023.
The resident remains dissatisfied because the landlord failed to acknowledge his complaint about water ingress in the property in its stage 2 response. It also failed to address his concerns about the communal cleaning and maintenance.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported that issues with his boiler and water ingress in the property date back to 2006 when he first moved into the property. This is not disputed by the landlord or this Service. It is also noted that the resident completed the landlord’s internal complaints process in 2009 regarding a complaint about his boiler and water ingress.
While related to the circumstances of this case, we will not consider or assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions at that time. This is because we do not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. This is because supporting evidence may not be readily available, given the passage of time.
However, this Service has referred to statements made by the landlord in 2009 to provide context to the assessment made for this complaint.
It is noted that reports made by the resident from August 2021 were referred to within his complaint and are also linked to the actions taken by the landlord in October 2022. For that reason, we have assessed the landlord’s handling of matters from August 2021 until its stage 2 response.

Communal repairs

The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing communal areas.
The landlord’s repairs policy outlines that it should complete routine repairs within 28 days. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds, published in September 2020 makes several recommendations. It states that landlords must ensure timely and accurate communication with all residents on complaints about communal areas. It also says that, where maintenance works are planned, residents should be informed of the work that will be undertaken and the timescale for completion.
The landlord has failed to evidence that it discussed the resident’s concerns regarding communal repairs and cleaning. It failed to attend a scheduled appointment to conduct an inspection and did not update the resident. This caused the resident frustration, and he needed to take the time and trouble to chase the landlord. This was inappropriate.
With regards to the communal door, the landlord assured the resident on 5 August 2021 that it would replace the lock as soon as possible. This was reasonable. However, the landlord has been unable to evidence when or if it completed the repair. Therefore, this Service cannot determine that the landlord acted in accordance with its repairs policy. The lack of evidence is a failing as the landlord should ensure that it maintains a clear audit trail of all actions taken in response to a repair.
With regards to the drains in the bin area, the resident raised the issue on 5 October 2022. The landlord unblocked the drains on 11 August 2023. The reasons for the delay are unclear. However, this was a significant departure from its repairs policy and unreasonable.
The resident told this Service that the landlord became aware of the collapsed communal wall in June 2022. It arranged several appointments between November 2022 and January 2023 to repair the wall. It was undoubtedly frustrating for the resident that the issue was not resolved promptly, and repeated appointments were required.
The landlord repaired the wall on 26 October 2023. However, the resident has told this Service that it was only partially finished. An order has been made in relation to this so that the landlord can ensure that the matter has been satisfactorily resolved. However, the time taken by the landlord to carry out some repair to the wall was protracted, and the evidence does not suggest that this delay was unavoidable.
The landlord has failed to evidence that it has repaired the gas meter box. The resident has told this Service that the repair remains outstanding. This is unreasonable and again, has been the cause of frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
Overall, the landlord failed to resolve the communal repairs promptly, resulting in the resident experiencing ongoing distress, inconvenience and significant frustration. Consideration of the resident’s general experience, worsened by the landlord’s handling of the complaint (which this Service has discussed in more detail below) and the poor record keeping has led the Ombudsman to conclude that there was maladministration.

Water ingress

The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the issues with the water ingress have been longstanding. Our role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This assessment will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete repairs to shared owner’s properties where it has an obligation to do so. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building and supply of services to each flat. It is also responsible for repairing and maintaining the rainwater goods on the building.
Throughout the course of his complaint, the resident explained that the water ingress and resultant damage to his boiler was caused by the construction and location of the boiler flue and overflowing of the rainwater goods. There is no dispute that the landlord fitted the boiler and flue before the resident purchased the property.
The landlord told the resident it had raised an emergency repair on 2 August 2023 in response to his report of water entering the property. It attended on 8 August 2023. This is a departure from its repairs policy – which states that the landlord will attend within a maximum of 24 hours and make the property safe. The landlord’s response was therefore inappropriate. When the landlord did attend, it repaired a broken downpipe and gulley. It was appropriate to ensure that any external repairs were remedied. However, it is a concern that the landlord missed an opportunity to assess the conditions inside the property. The resident had been clear in his report that water was entering his home and the landlord should reasonably have undertaken some level of internal inspection. That it did not was a significant failing considering that the issues for the resident had been longstanding.
When the survey was undertaken in 2021, a number of recommendations were made and the landlord did not take any action in relation to this. While it is acknowledged that a landlord does not have to accept each recommendation that is made, the problems had persisted. As such, the landlord should reasonably have revisited the recommendations and explored the possibility of actioning them. The landlord advised that it was reviewing the survey findings. However, it advised that it was doing this for approximately 9 month. It is unclear why the landlord could not progress matters during this time. However, its handling of the matter was appropriate, and caused the resident considerable frustration. During this time, the resident experienced and reported continued water ingress. Thus exacerbating the distress and inconvenience he had already experienced.
The resident arranged numerous repairs himself to temporarily resolve issues associated with the water ingress. He also replaced his boiler despite the landlord failing to ensure that the necessary repairs to stop the ingress had been undertaken.
Overall:
1. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed the resident’s reports of water ingress inside his property between January 2021 to now. It failed to complete both intermittent repairs and repairs that would permanently resolve the issue in the resident’s property.
2. The landlord has failed to implement any of the recommendations made following its 2021 survey, or commission a new survey. Given the passage of time and that no remedial action had been undertaken, the landlord should have been proactively trying to find a solution to the issue the resident had reported.
3. The email records show that the resident had reported issues and repeatedly contacted the landlord for updates on the repairs, but the landlord failed to provide the resident with any meaningful information.
4. There is no record or reference to the resident’s reports of water ingress contained within the landlord’s repair records.
5. The landlord has also failed to take sufficient account of the time and trouble the resident took to chase the outstanding repairs, or to fully acknowledge what had gone wrong.
Due to the impact these cumulative failings would have had on the resident and the significant distress and inconvenience endured; the Ombudsman has made a finding of severe maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. The landlord should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
The resident raised two complaints. The complaints were regarding different matters, and the resident raised the complaints on different days. In accordance with the Code, the landlord should have raised two separate complaints and responded to each complaint in accordance with the correct timeframes. Its failure to do so was inappropriate.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 June 2023. This was 176 working days after the resident raised his initial complaint, and 162 working days after he raised his second complaint. This is significantly beyond the timescales outlined within its policy and the Code. This undoubtedly caused the resident considerable distress, inconvenience, and frustration. It is concerning that the landlord offered no explanation about its delayed response. This was unreasonable and the lack of explanation surrounding the delay damaged the landlord/tenant relationship.
The resident escalated his complaint on 29 June 2023 due to chasing for repairs, and matters being unresolved in the property. In accordance with its complaint policy, the landlord should have issued its stage 2 response on 27 July 2023. The landlord failed to respond by then, which was unreasonable and a departure from its policy and the Code.
The Code clearly outlines that on receipt of the escalation request, landlords must set out their understanding of issues outstanding and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties.
The landlord did not address the complaint regarding water ingress and communal cleaning in its stage 2 response. This is despite the resident providing clear reasons for his dissatisfaction in response to the stage 1 correspondence. The landlord failed to seek clarification from the resident about his complaint escalation. This was a failure, and the resident had expressed his disappointment that the landlord was selective in the matters it chose to respond to. This caused the resident to lose confidence in the landlord.
The landlord provided this Service with a copy of its stage 2 response in November 2023. The date of the response was 17 August 2023. The evidence available to this Service does not indicate that the resident received the stage 2 response at that time. The resident sent several chaser emails to the landlord throughout August 2023 asking for a response to his complaint. In the absence of contemporaneous evidence, we cannot conclude that the landlord issued its stage 2 response at that time.
The landlord has told this Service that it had posted its stage 2 response to the resident. We do not dispute this. However, upon receiving chaser emails from the resident, it would have been reasonable and courteous to;
1. Advise when it had sent the response by post.
2. Enquire as to whether the resident had received it.
3. Confirm that it would re-send its response either by post again or via email.
The landlord failed to respond and did not re-issue its stage 2 response. This caused the resident frustration and he only received the stage 2 response after this Service intervened. This could and should have reasonably been avoided. This was a failing of the landlord.
The landlord failed to follow its complaint procedure, significantly prolonging the complaints process for the resident, and did not offer an appropriate remedy in recognition of its failures. Overall, there were significant failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and as such, this Service has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management states that a landlord’s failings to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Repairs stresses the importance of landlord’s and its contractors keeping comprehensive records of residents’ repair reports and its responses, including details of appointments, work carried out and completion dates.
In this case, the landlord’s repair records lack detail. Its records show the target date to complete repairs by, but it does not show when it raised the repairs, the dates of any appointments or the outcome of the appointments. Therefore, we cannot establish when it addressed reported repairs, or when it completed the work. This has hindered this Service’s ability to accurately assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions in line with the relevant policies and its repair obligations.
The repair records do not evidence any reports made by the resident related to water ingress. This is a significant failing.
The evidence of poor record keeping would likely have contributed to the landlord’s poor repairs management and its failure in putting together a coherent plan to identify the cause of the problem and complete the required repairs within a reasonable amount of time. It would have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication and lack of updates. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in this case.
We have identified various record keeping failures in other complaints about the landlord that we have investigated recently. We have already made orders for the landlord to review and improve its record keeping and as such we have not made any orders following this investigation. However, we will monitor the landlord’s compliance with previous orders already issued.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communal repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of water ingress in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. This should be from a member of its senior management team.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1500 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £250 compensation for the frustration and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs.
  2. £1000 compensation for the considerable distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress in his property.
  3. £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling and significant delays endured.
3. The landlord may have completed all repairs to the communal areas that have been established as necessary. If it has not, it must:
  1. Contact the resident to determine what repairs remain outstanding.
  2. Provide the resident with an action plan on how it intends to follow up on his request for works to the communal areas. This should include an agreement on how and when it will update the resident on any works it intends to carry out.
  3. Provide the resident with an estimated completion times for those works.
  4. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has done this within 6 weeks of receiving this report.
4. Complete an inspection of the property to determine the cause of water ingress. It should then provide its findings of the inspection in writing to the resident and this Service. It should also include any repairs identified, as well as appointment dates for any repairs that it intends to do. Any repairs should be scheduled within 2 weeks of the inspection taking place.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service.