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

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202323366)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323366

Wandle Housing Association Limited

30 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the security of the car park.
    2. Complaint handling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block. The block has a basement car park that residents can use.
  2. On 1 June 2023, the landlord sent all residents of the block a letter advising that it was going to change the lock on the automated car park gate. This was to stop unauthorised access to the car park. It advised that all resident’s would be issued with a fob to open and close the gate. It is unclear if the gate was broken when the letter was issued. However, the letter did not outline that resident’s should not use the car park.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 August 2023 and said that her son’s bike, that was in the car park, had been damaged. She said the gate was open as it was not working. The landlord responded and advised that it was waiting to complete an outstanding repair on the gate.
  4. On 4 September 2023, the resident raised a complaint. She said that due to the gate being open, her son’s bike had been stolen from the car park. She said that the car park lacked any security. The resident said that there was a CCTV camera above the entrance door, but this did not work.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 25 September 2023. It said that it was not responsible for any items left in the car park, as residents were aware that the gate was not locked. It confirmed that fobs had now been issued to all residents and it had fixed the gate. The landlord confirmed that it did not have CCTV of the building, and the camera referred to by the resident was another resident’s personal camera for their own property.
  6. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 29 September 2023. She said that while the bike was her responsibility, the security of the car park was not. The resident said that the landlord should have made sure that the gate was working. She said that the gate had not been working for “a few months”. She also queried why there were signs informing that there was CCTV, but the landlord said there was not.
  7. The stage 1 author responded and told the resident that she needed to follow the correct process to escalate her complaint. Following this, the resident redirected her escalation to customer services on 10 October 2023. On 23 October 2023, the resident advised the landlord again of her reasons for escalating her complaint. The landlord acknowledged her stage 2 complaint on 2 November 2023.
  8. The resident subsequently contacted us as the landlord had yet to respond to her complaint. Following further enquiries with the landlord, it confirmed that it had issued a stage 2 response on 24 November 2023. A copy of this correspondence was provided to this Service. However, the contents of the letter were the same as the stage 1 response which had been issued some 2 months prior. Following a request for clarification, the landlord confirmed that the letter of 24 November was its final response.
  9. The bike was subsequently found by the police. However, the resident remains dissatisfied as the landlord failed to take responsibility for the costs she incurred when repairing the bike. She said that the landlord failed to ensure that the car park was secure. The resident has said that there continues to be issues with the gate lock breaking and unauthorised people accessing the car park.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The Ombudsman recognises and does not underestimate that this is an emotive issue for the resident. It is also noted that she incurred significant costs in order to repair the bike that had been stolen and subsequently retrieved.
  2. However, it is outside of the Service’s remit to determine whether the landlord is liable to cover the cost of the bike repairs. Such liability issues are more appropriately handled by another process, such as through an insurance company or by the courts. While we cannot determine whether the landlord is responsible for the damage incurred and the associated cost of the repairs. We have assessed how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and whether it acted fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the security of the car park.

  1. The landlord operates a neighbourhood management policy. The policy states that it would ensure that its buildings and estates are kept safe and secure. The policy says that the landlord is responsible for appointing a contractor to maintain any automated gates. It also states that if an automated gate fails, it would be left open rather than locked shut, until it was repaired.
  2. There is no evidence that a third party manages the building or estate, including the car park.
  3. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy outline that it’s responsible for repairs to security gates. It should complete appointed routine repairs within 28 days.
  4. It is unclear when the gates stopped working, and when the landlord became aware of the issue. We have not been provided with any repair records that detail reports and repairs in relation to the gates. The resident referenced in her complaint escalation that the gates had not been working for a “few months”. We do not seek to dispute this; however, there is no other evidence to corroborate when the gates first stopped working. It is also unclear if the gates were working when the landlord sent its letter on 1 June 2023 about changing the lock. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it would have been reasonable for it to set out when it was first notified of the issue, when the repairs took place, and whether its handling of the matter was in accordance with its repair timescales. It appropriately confirmed that the repair was complete, but the landlord should reasonably have confirmed whether or not it responded to the repair in accordance with its policy. That the landlord did not demonstrate it had assessed its handling of the repair was inappropriate. Given the absence of evidence, we have also been able to assess whether the handling of the repair was reasonable.
  5. The landlord informed the resident that it was not responsible for any items left in the car park. The resident was aware that the gate did not work, and unauthorised people were able to access the car park until it was repaired. As such, it is understandable that the landlord would not take responsibility for any damage or theft that occurred while the gate was not working. There is no evidence that the landlord is obliged to guarantee the security of resident’s belongings in the car park.
  6. However, upon being made aware of the resident’s stolen bike, this Service would expect the landlord to signpost the resident to the appropriate avenues. The landlord failed to direct the resident to the police, and did not offer any advice regarding insurance. It did not advise the resident to claim on her own contents insurance, nor did it provide the resident with any information about how she could pursue a claim via its insurer. This was inappropriate.
  7. The landlord’s response lacked sensitivity and empathy for the resident’s lived experience. While this Service understands that the landlord did not accept responsibility for the stolen bike, it could have approached its complaint response with more understanding and provided information that would have assisted the resident. Its failure to do so was unreasonable and undoubtedly caused the resident disappointment and frustration.
  8. The resident has raised concerns about the lack of CCTV in the car park. Although the landlord is under no obligation to install CCTV, it would be appropriate for the landlord to put in some means of monitoring the car park, as it may serve to act as a deterrent and provide further security alongside the locked gates. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider what measures it can put in place, and any decision should be communicated to all residents.
  9. The landlord appropriately explained why it did not take responsibility for the stolen bike. However, it failed to;
    1. Signpost the resident to the police and insurance providers.
    2. Approach the issue with sensitivity and empathy.
  10. As such, we have determined that there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the security of the car park.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to 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).
  2. 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 resident’s and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 16 working days after the resident raised her complaint. This was outside the timescales outlined within its complaint policy and the Code. The landlord did not apologise for the delay, or provide an explanation as to why it had not responded in line with the timescales.  This, which was inappropriate.
  4. The stage 1 response outlined that the resident could escalate her complaint but failed to outline how. The landlord provided a link to its website within the response about the complaints process. However, this Service is aware that this link also does not outline a specific process in how the resident could escalate her complaint to stage 2. In the absence of a definitive process or dedicated email address for complaint escalations, it is understandable that the resident replied to the stage 1 author. She explained the reasons that she remained dissatisfied and asked to escalate her complaint. 
  5. The landlord responded and advised the resident to “follow the process”. The response implied that the landlord had informed the resident of a specific process that she needed to follow in order to escalate her complaint. This Service has seen no evidence of the landlord providing such information. The explanation around the escalation process in the stage 1 response was vague and ambiguous. This inevitably caused the resident confusion and delayed her progressing the complaint through the landlord’s complaints process.
  6. It is concerning that the landlord failed to advise the resident of the process in question during its communication. This was unhelpful and obstructive. It would have been courteous to provide the resident with the required information, explaining how she could formally escalate her complaint. Its failure to do so was inappropriate. Furthermore, the Code sets out that landlord’s need to provide resident’s with details of how to escalate a complaint. Its failure to do was a departure from the Code and unreasonable.
  7. The landlord has been unable to evidence a stage 2 response to this Service. While it has maintained that a response was issued to the resident, there is no evidence of this. Instead we have been provided with two copies of the same complaint response with two different dates – and the landlord has confirmed that one was the stage 1 response and the other the stage 2 response. Given that the correspondence is the same, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it dealt with the complaint in accordance with its policy and the Code. This was a significant failing and the resident was not given the opportunity to have her complaint reviewed by the landlord as a result.
  8. The landlord failed to follow its complaint process causing distress and frustration for the resident and prolonging the complaints process. It failed to explain its escalation process in a reasonable manner and was unhelpful in assisting the resident through the complaints process. Its handling of the complaint was also not in accordance with the Code.
  9. Overall, there were significant failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and as such, this Service has reached a finding of maladministration.

Record keeping

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 has failed to provide any evidence about its repairs to the car park gate. That 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.
  4. As above, the landlord has provided two copies of the same letter and suggested that one was the stage 1 response and the other the stage 2. This is further indicative of poor record keeping practices. The landlord should have systems in place that allow it to keep a clear record of information, especially information relating to a complaint so that it can be made available to an independent body such as the Ombudsman. We have therefore concluded that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
  5. This Service has identified various record keeping failures in several complaints against the landlord recently. Therefore, we have already made orders for the landlord to review and improve its record keeping and no further orders have been made in this investigation. However, we will monitor the landlord’s compliance with previous orders already issued.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was
    1. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the security of the car park.
    2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £300 compensation, consisting of:
    1. £100 for the distress and disappointment caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the security of the car park.
    2. £200 for the failings identified in respect of the associated complaint handling.
  2. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should consider what additional measures it could put in place to ensure the car park is safe and secure. Its decision about implementing any additional safety measures should be shared with all residents.