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

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202112638)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112638

Wandle Housing Association Limited

11 February 2021


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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp in the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord on 5 March 2021 that, after removing wallpaper from her living room walls, she had discovered water stains, damp and black mould. The landlord raised a job that day to check the brickwork and dampproof course as water may be penetrating the wall. According to the resident, this was completed on 24 March 2021.
  3. According to the repair log, the landlord raised a job on 24 March 2021 to investigate a potential broken pipe underneath the resident’s and the adjoining properties as something was affecting the properties.
  4. The landlord and its drainage contractor carried out a joint meeting at the property on 23 April 2021.
  5. The landlord inspected the property alongside another contractor on 11 May 2021.
  6. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord as she was unhappy that repairs to address the damp had been agreed in May 2021 but had yet to be completed. She noted that she had received visits to the property by its surveyor, drainage contractor and damp specialist. The resident said that she had been informed that redecoration would be provided but had yet to receive contact about this. She added that she had needed to pack up her possessions due to the damp and mould and her partner had medical vulnerabilities. To resolve her complaint the resident wanted it to communicate with her about the works and for it to complete the work.
  7. The landlord’s stage one response stated that the damp she reported was due to condensation. It provided information to her on how to reduce the moisture levels in her property and confirmed that the outcome of its inspection was to install an extractor fan to reduce condensation. The landlord advised the resident that it would arrange for the work to be completed without further delay and asked her to contact it again if an appointment was not offered to her within five working days.
  8. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint with the landlord. Details of this have not been provided to the Ombudsman.
  9. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 11 August 2021, noting that her reasons for her continued dissatisfaction were that she wished for remedial work to be carried out to address the damp in the property and for it to communicate with her about this. It also noted that she had stated that she had needed to box up her possessions due to the damp and that her husband had medical vulnerabilities. These issues had already been raised in the resident’s first complaint.
  10. The landlord said that its damp specialist had attended her property on 20 July 2021 and had provided a report which confirmed that there was condensation present in the property and no evidence of damp. At the time it was recommended to install an extractor fan in the property. The landlord acknowledged that it had not completed this repair and apologised to the resident for this. It said that it would raise the job as a priority and provide an appointment to her within five working days.
  11. The landlord offered compensation of £200 to the resident, comprised of:
    1. £50 compensation for its failure to respond to the complaint within policy timeframes.
    2. £100 for its delays and the inconvenience caused.
    3. £50 for its failure to complete repairs within policy timeframes.
  12. The resident emailed her MP on 25 August 2021 to seek their intervention. She informed them that the landlord attended on 24 March 2021 and found that there was indeed damp in the property. The resident relayed that on 23 April 2021 she was informed that major works would be required remove and re-plaster the walls property, after which it would redecorate.
  13. The resident said that, since 5 March 2021, she had raised concerns to the landlord about the cause of damp being related to her neighbouring properties, which she repeated to it on 5 and 14 May 2021 when she highlighted that the external guttering was overflowing. She noted that a damp specialist had attended around 20 May 2021 who had attributed the dampness to condensation. The resident said she then received conflicting information from the landlord on whether another damp survey would be carried out to confirm the source of the dampness, different opinions on the cause of the dampness and whether redecoration work would be carried out. She then experienced difficulty in getting responses from it about the works it was to carry out.
  14. The resident made further contacts with the landlord on 8 and 17 September 2021 for an update on the works. It proposed another inspection of her property on 20 September 2021 and she informed this Service on 25 September 2021 that it had visited and the staff member had been “confused” by the proposed installation of an extractor fan. The landlord informed her that it would clean her gutters and inspect the walls.
  15. The resident chased the landlord for updates on the proposed work on 27 and 29 September and 4 October 2021. The resident spoke to the landlord on 5 October 2021 and emailed it on 10 October 2021 to chase a written proposal for remedial works which it agreed to provide her. She noted that it had increased its compensation offer to £250. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord passing the responsibility for the repairs between two different departments; she felt that it was avoiding responsibility for the repairs. She questioned the opinion of the previous damp survey as she had since discovered that the black mould she had reported to the wall was actually black paint.
  16. The landlord carried out work on 12 October 2021 to repair broken guttering and brackets to the resident’s property and several of her neighbouring properties which it believed to be the source of the dampness she reported. It required a drying out period of four to six weeks to confirm that this work had resolved the dampness.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it had a responsibility to maintain the structure and exterior of the property, including walls and drains, gutters and external pipes.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms that it is to complete non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedures with response due within ten working days at stage one and within 20 working days at the final stage of this procedure. If it is unable to keep to these timeframes, it is to explain why the resident and extend the timeframe by no more than a further ten working days.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp in the property

  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. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. When a landlord receives a report of a repair, its first response should be to inspect the issue. It is noted that it carried out inspections on 23 March, 24 April, 11 May and 20 September 2021 before remedial work was eventually carried out on 12 October 2021. While it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property to assess the source of the dampness reported by the resident, it was unreasonable that it required four inspections, spanning six months before it identified the cause of the dampness and carried out remedial work. This was an excessive delay which was considerably longer than the 28 calendar days it specifies in its repairs policy above for the completion of a non-emergency repair.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord has not provided any evidence of the reports resulting from these inspections. A landlord would be expected to keep records of any inspections it carried out, not only to provide an audit trail in the case of any disputes, but to ensure that it could evidence that it had carried out appropriate inspections of the repair reported and carried out remedial work as appropriate.
  4. Given that the resident raised questions about the effectiveness of the inspection, particularly that it failed to identify that what she reported as black mould was black paint, the landlord has not evidenced that it inspected the issue thoroughly. There was also no evidence of it communicating with her on the progress of the repair. This lack of evidence indicates that it failed to manage the repair effectively which caused an excessive delay to the resolution of the resident’s repair.
  5. The landlord appears to have offered £250 compensation (increased from £200 in the final response), with £200 of this for its failures in the handling of the repair. Given that there was no evidence that it completed any repair work until 12 October 2021, seven months after the resident’s initial report, this offer did not adequately recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Furthermore the landlord initially identified an issue affecting multiple properties, and received reports about the guttering, but then focused to the issue of condensation as opposed to arranging any repairs. The repair log shows the external wall required repointing and resealing after the guttering repairs in October 2021.
  6. Therefore the repair failures consisted of:
    1. The time taken to complete repairs (March to October 2021).
    2. The failure to follow up the initial surveys in March-May 2021.
    3. The failure to communicate with the resident about the progress of the investigation and repairs.
    4. The failure to maintain appropriate records of the investigations. Water entry into a property can be a challenge to diagnose, which makes detailed record keeping of any investigation particularly important.
    5. The knock-on delay to the plaster and decoration repairs as the dry-out period (4-6weeks) could only begin from October 2021.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord has not provided comprehensive information about the resident’s complaints at stage one and her escalation of the complaint. Her stage one complaint is dated 1 July 2021, the same day as its stage one response. This appears inconsistent. The landlord has not provided the resident’s final stage complaint escalation. This prevents the Ombudsman from reliably assessing whether her complaint was handled in accordance with its complaints policy above.
  2. The landlord would be expected to keep records of all correspondence relating to a complaint so that it could evidence that it acted reasonably and in line with its obligations under its policy. In this case, the inconsistent and absent records prevent an accurate determination being made on its handling of the complaint and represents a failure on its part.
  3. The landlord has upheld that it did not handle the complaint correctly. It has offered £50 to acknowledge the error. In this case, the lack of clarity in the handling of the complaint may not necessarily have changed the overall outcome, while the specific information available is limited, the overall correspondence shows there was not an excessive delay in the handling of the complaint. Therefore, the £50 compensation it offered the resident in its final response was reasonable

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. As a result of the order above the landlord has been ordered to, within 4 weeks:
    1. Pay a further £450 compensation to the resident for its failures in the handling of her repair, consisting of:
      1.  £250 to acknowledge the inconvenience of the 7 month delay in completing the required repair works.
      2. £100 to acknowledge the distress caused by the failure to follow up the initial survey’s (and the confusion this will have caused the resident).
      3. £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience of the poor communication about the repairs.
      4. £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to provide an ongoing log of its investigation results.
      5. £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience of the delayed internal works.
      6. Minus the £200 already offered by the landlord.
  2. The Ombudsman would also like to formally recommend that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £250 compensation already offered over the course of the complaint procedure, if it has not already.
    2. Contact the resident to confirm that the remedial work it carried out on 12 October 2021 resolved the dampness following the drying out period, if it has not already.
    3. If the dampness is not resolved, it should carry out a further inspection, provide the findings of this in writing to the resident, and arrange remedial works as appropriate. The landlord would then need to consider a further offer of redress for the continued inconvenience.