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

London Borough of Wandsworth (202411146)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411146

Wandsworth Council

26 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The time taken for the landlord to install a positive input ventilation (PIV) at the property.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about a decant and repair works in November 2023.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in her property.
    4. The condition of the resident’s property after works had taken place.
    5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overgrown trees.
    6. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff member.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The time taken for the landlord to install a PIV at the property.

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.l of the Scheme, the complaint about the time taken for the landlord to install a PIV at the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which have been raised again after the Ombudsman has already decided on them.
  2. On 29 February 2024 in case reference 202229840 the Ombudsman considered the installation of the PIV. The investigation found that the landlord had not considered installation of PIV as an option through the scope of its complaint between January 2022 and February 2022. Moreover, the report found the PIV was installed 89 weeks after its final complaint response. As such the Ombudsman has already previously decided on this matter.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord for a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a 3-storey block. The landlord is a local authority. The resident lives with her four children.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould at her property on many occasions between 2011 and 2024. The landlord’s handling of this was considered in the Ombudsman’s investigation, reference 202229840 on 29 February 2024.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 26 April 2024 regarding several issues. This included a delayed repair in November 2023 and her request to be placed in temporary accommodation whilst works took place. She also raised concerns about repairs in her kitchen and bathroom including a hole in the bath, a loose door, and tree maintenance. Furthermore, the resident said her property was left in poor condition following work in February 2024 and this impacted her already poor health.
  4. On 2 May 2024, the landlord told the resident it had previously addressed her concerns about temporary accommodation and the repair in November 2023. It said a contractor would contact her about the trees.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 10 May 2024. It confirmed it had raised work orders for all reported issues. It stated it had attempted other steps to reduce moisture at the property before installing a PIV in November 2023. It apologised for its contractor failing to return the resident’s belongings to their original location during the work in February 2024.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 May 2024 and the landlord provided its stage 2 response to her on 14 June. It stated it could not review concerns about the tree, temporary accommodation, or repair of November 2023. It upheld the findings of its stage 1 complaint response but apologised for the delay in replacing the resident’s bath.
  7. In correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident said she wanted move to a suitable property and needed temporary accommodation whilst any work was carried out. She said the landlord had only partially addressed her concerns, dismissing others.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her initial complaint of 26 April 2024 the resident complained she had mould underneath her kitchen cabinets. Evidence shows the resident did not raise this during the inspection on 26 April or during her complaint escalation of 17 May. As such in accordance with 42.a of the Scheme this issue had not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Because of that, this aspect of the resident’s complaint will not be considered in this investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about a decant and repair works in November 2023.

  1. In her initial complaint of 26 April 2024 the resident believed she should have been placed in temporary accommodation for previous and upcoming works. She also raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of a repair in November 2023. She said the contractor attended at the wrong address and the landlord inaccurately stated it had completed the repair.
  2. On 2 May 2024 in its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement the landlord said it had previously addressed concerns about a temporary decant and the repair work in November 2023. It also said this was assessed in the Ombudsman’s report of 29 February 2024, reference 202229840.
  3. No reference to these points has been seen in a previous complaint responses from the landlord. Furthermore, report 202229840 only referenced these points as events after the landlord’s internal complaints process. They were not assessed in that investigation. As such the residents’ concerns about a temporary decant and the repair in November 2023 had not been investigated and the landlord’s decision was in error.
  4. The landlord’s error denied the resident a formal response on the matter. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Without the landlord’s explanations in response to the complaint this investigation cannot assess the reasonableness of its actions.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in her property.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy has 3 categories of repair, emergency, urgent and non-urgent. It will respond to urgent repairs such as repairing water supply installations within 7 working days. It does offer enhanced priority for disabled residents for this, however. It will respond to non-urgent repairs such as repairs to doors and minor leaks in 20 working days.
  2. In her complaint of 26 April 2024, the resident raised several repair issues. In her kitchen she reported a slow leaking pipe, her sink was not sealed correctly, and extractor fan was not installed correctly. She also said her bedroom door was loose and needed fixing.
  3. In the landlord’s complaint response of 10 May 2024, it confirmed it had visited the resident’s property on 26 April to take details of the repair issues. The evidence confirms its approach as it arranged for a specialist contractor to assess the repair issues at the property on 1 May. The landlord sealed the sink the same day and arranged repair of the leak for 17 May. The repairs to the sink and the leak were completed in accordance with the timescale in its repairs policy.
  4. It is unclear when the extractor fan was repaired, however, there is no further evidence of the resident raising concerns about this. Work to repair the bedroom door did not commence until 8 October 2024. From the inspection of 1 May, this repair exceeded the timescale in the landlord’s policy by 92 working days.
  5. Also, in her complaint of 26 April 2024 the resident reported damage to her bath. She said she reported the issue on 18 March and the landlord measured it on 26 March. She said she was told to cover the damage with tape in the meantime. The landlord inspected this on 26 April.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord noted it had completed a temporary repair of the bath. That was incorrect, which it appropriately acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response. It stated it should have specifically noted it had not completed a temporary repair, and this was the tape the resident had placed.
  7. The landlord replaced the bath on 17 May 2024. Its stage 2 complaint response acknowledged it was delayed in completing this and should have recognised this in its stage 1 response. In accordance with its policy, it should have completed the repair in 7 working days and should have prioritised the repair due to the resident’s health. It exceeded this by 35 working days.
  8. The landlord did not offer compensation for the delays in completing the bath replacement and bedroom door repair. It should have considered doing so in accordance with its compensation policy for the inconvenience caused.
  9. In her complaint escalation of 17 May 2024 the resident raised concerns with the tiling around a bathroom tap. The landlord failed to respond to these points in its stage 2 response. The evidence shows these repairs were still outstanding by 3 October. As such the delay in addressing these concerns exceeded the landlord’s timescale in its repairs policy. It is unclear if these have been completed.
  10. In summary, the landlord took an inappropriate amount of time to repair the bath and arrange repair of the door. It did not acknowledge the resident’s reports of a tiling issue or leak in her bathroom. The landlord did not offer compensation to reflect these failings. However, its response to sink repairs and bathroom leak were timely and in accordance with its policy.

The condition of the resident’s property after works had taken place.

  1. In her initial complaint and escalation, the resident raised concerns about the state of her property following works on 2 February 2024. She said items had not been returned to their usual position, there was dust everywhere and the contractor had damaged her plants. She said she was disabled and been forced to return all items back to their usual position.
  2. In its response to her complaint the landlord acknowledged its contractor had failed to return the resident’s belongings. It advised of the steps it was taking to address this with the contractor to avoid this occurring again. It also asked her for information about the damaged plants so it could investigate further, which she provided in June (no evidence of further action by the landlord has been seen). These were partly reasonable responses to the issues the resident had raised. However, as with the repairs, the landlord did not offer further remedies for the inconvenience, which was counter to its compensation policy, leaving the complaint unresolved.  

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overgrown trees.

  1. In her complaint of 26 April 2024, the resident reported that a tree needed cutting back near her property. She said she had raised this previously without reply with her most recent reports being August and September 2023.
  2. The landlord’s complaint acknowledgement of 2 May 2024 stated its contractor would speak with her about cutting the tree. It failed to respond to the matter in its stage 1 complaint response. This was inappropriate as its Complaints Policy states when a complaint is about more than one service, one reply covering all service areas will be sent. As the landlord responded to all other issues it should have included this too given the resident had explained her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s previous lack of reply about the matter.
  3. The resident said in her complaint escalation of 17 May 2024 that the tree cutting was still pending. She asked why the landlord had ignored her emails and cut other neighbour’s trees but not hers. The landlord had the opportunity to rectify its failure to investigate the issue at stage 2 but did not do so. It confirmed the tree would be pruned on 17 June, but did not address its failure to chase the matter or communicate with the resident following her earlier reports. As such the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issue was left unresolved.

The resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff member.

  1. In her complaint escalation of 17 May 2024, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s staff member during a visit on 26 April. She said the staff member gave her housing advice when it was not their remit. She said this should be the responsibility of the allocations team.
  2. The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed it was not inappropriate for its officer to give housing advice to the resident. It explained the advice was to support the resident from someone who had known her circumstances for many years. Nonetheless, it said the officer would not discuss housing advice with the resident again. The landlord’s response was reasonable given the clear original intention to provide assistance to the resident and that there is no indication the information given to the resident was incorrect.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.l of the Scheme the time taken for the landlord to install PIV at the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in respect of:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about a decant and repair works in November 2023.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in her property.
    3. The condition of the resident’s property after works had taken place.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overgrown trees.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff member.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £450. This is comprised of:
    1. £200 the delay in replacing the resident’s bath, responding to the tiling repair and repairing her door.
    2. £150 for its contractor’s failure to leave the resident’s property in an appropriate standard following work.
    3. £100 for the failure to address the resident’s concerns about the overgrown tree.
  2. Within 6 weeks of this report the landlord must investigate and provide a formal complaint response to the resident regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree.
  3. Within 6 weeks of this report the landlord must confirm in writing to the Ombudsman and resident it has passed the resident’s evidence of damage to her possessions to its contractor for further consideration.
  4. Evidence of compliance must be provided to the Service.