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

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202201471)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201471

Wandle Housing Association Limited

21 December 2023


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 regarding the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repair issues, including reports of mould in his kitchen and broken kitchen units.
    2. Reponses to the resident’s wife when she made contact on his behalf.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the service will not consider complaints which concern matters where a complainant has, or had, the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. Just prior to issuing the determination on this case, the Ombudsman became aware that the resident had instigated a disrepair claim in January 2023, regarding several repair issues which included reported damp and mould in his kitchen and damaged kitchen units. The disrepair claim was settled by the landlord in June 2023, with a schedule of works agreed and a sum of compensation made to the resident. As such, the following aspects of the complaint are ruled to be outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as the resident has already had the opportunity to address those issues during legal proceedings which have already been concluded:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repair issues, including reports of mould in his kitchen and broken kitchen units.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The landlord has not provided a full copy of the tenancy agreement, so it is unclear when the tenancy began, but the page it has provided shows the resident’s wife is a joint tenant. The landlord has described the property as being a 2-bedroom house.
  2. The landlord has advised it is not aware of any vulnerabilities within the household.

Summary of events

  1. Records show that on 26 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord in response to a circular email about the services it was providing during the COVID-19 pandemic. In his email he stated he had “never experienced such bad service” and referred to “numerous complaints” he had sent to the landlord’s Customer Services team. He did not provide any further details regarding the complaints or when they had been made but stated the landlord had “sent out letters” telling him they would be responded to. There is no record of the landlord providing a response.
  2. On 16 March 2022, the resident forwarded the July 2020 email to the landlord’s Customer Service team, with no further information. It responded the same day to request he contact its Complaints Team if he was seeking updates or had any concerns regarding an existing complaint. It provided him with the Complaints Team’s email address.  
  3. Following contact from the resident, who advised he had made a complaint but received no further contact from the landlord, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 25 May 2022 asking it to raise a complaint. It was requested to provide him with a response to the resident by 10 June 2022. Records show the landlord contacted the resident on 4 June 2022 to advise it had no record of any open complaints regarding “outstanding repairs” and asked him to provide further information. The resident advised the Ombudsman that he did so on 10 June 2022. This investigation has not seen evidence of this email and there is no record of any further correspondence from the landlord.
  4. After further correspondence from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 19 August and 2 September 2022 asking it to provide the resident with a complaint response, but it failed to do so. After the landlord advised the Ombudsman on 6 October 2022 that it had no record of any open complaints, the service issued the landlord with a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on 13 October 2022 as it had failed to engage with the resident’s complaint, contrary to its member obligations under Paragraph 9 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  5. On 15 November 2022, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord to advise that the resident’s complaint had been accepted for investigation as it was considered that, as per Paragraph 32 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, due to the landlord’s failure to provide a response to his complaint, its complaint procedures were considered to have been exhausted.
  6. On 6 December 2022, the landlord provided a response at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It provided an erroneous apology for having been unable to resolve his complaint at stage 1 and stated the aim of its stage 2 response was to “review our handling of your complaint”. It understood the resident’s complaint to be about “outstanding repairs in (the resident’s) kitchen” and that he was “unhappy with the treatment of (his) wife” when she contacted the landlord on his behalf. It made the following comments and findings:
    1. It stated it was “regrettable” that the resident did not receive a stage 1 complaint response and acknowledged this was “contrary to our policy and not the kind of service we would expect you to receive”. It offered a further apology.
    2. It noted the resident had submitted a complaint in June 2022 after it had contacted him following representations from the Ombudsman, but it had no records of receiving any previous complaint. It recognized the resident had provided further information regarding the complaint as requested, but again acknowledged it was “regrettable” this was “not picked up”.
    3. Considering the nature of the repairs the resident had reported, it believed the “best course of action” would be for it to inspect his kitchen to “determine the scope of the works” required.
    4. Regarding his concerns about how his wife was treated when contacting the landlord, it advised it was “usual protocol” to ask for authorisation before it could discuss any issues with someone who was not the named tenant. It advised it had no record of receiving any kind of authorisation from the resident so requested he submit a written authorisation for it to put on file so his wife “does not encounter these issues in future”.
    5. It noted that, as a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted it to complete “all outstanding repairs as soon as possible”. It agreed to the following actions:
      1. Its repairs service would be in contact “shortly” to arrange an inspection of his kitchen and “scope outstanding repairs”.
      2. It had asked his Neighbourhood Housing Officer to confirm if they had written authorisation from him regarding his wife contacting on his behalf, and reiterated that, if they did not, it would “ensure (permission) is recorded and visible to relevant stakeholders” once it was provided.
      3. It acknowledged the “distress and inconvenience” the resident experienced “attempting to get (his) complaint investigated and a response issued” and it would offer £500 compensation for this. This consisted of £300 for having to chase a response to the complaint and £200 for the delay in issuing said response. 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s responses to the resident’s wife when she made contact on his behalf

  1. The resident explained he was upset with how his wife was treated by the landlord when contacting it regarding tenancy issues. In its response, the landlord acknowledged it had asked for authorisation to speak with her, advising this was its “usual protocol” when people who were not the named tenant made contact. It clarified that it had not received any such written authorisation from the resident in the past and asked him to provide one so that the “issue” was not repeated in future.
  2. However, the portion of the tenancy agreement provided to this investigation by the landlord clearly indicates that the resident’s wife is a joint tenant, rather than someone who was simply named on the tenancy as a household member. It is therefore unclear why the landlord considered the resident’s wife was not a “named tenant” and why the resident would have been required to provide his authorisation for her to discuss any tenancy issues on his behalf. The evidence available suggests the landlord’s position that the resident’s wife was not a named tenant was incorrect and it should not have asked the resident to provide any form of authorisation, either during the complaints process or as part of its suggested resolution to the complaint. This was a failing that the landlord appears not to have recognised within its complaint investigation, when a simple check of its own tenancy records should have led it to conclude that its stated position was incorrect. 
  3. The landlord’s response was also confusing as, having decided that authorisation was necessary, it advised the resident it had no record of receiving any form of authorisation from the resident. However, as a resolution to the complaint it then stated it would ask his Neighbourhood Housing Officer if they had a copy of any such authorisation, which they should already have done if they determined there was nothing on their records. This means it is unclear whether the landlord had made appropriate or relevant enquiries prior to issuing its response.
  4. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its responses to the resident’s wife when she made contact on his behalf. From the evidence available, while it may have followed its own protocol regarding household members, it should not have done so in the first place as it should have treated the resident’s wife as a joint tenant. It would likely have been distressing for her to be told she needed permission from the resident before she could speak to the landlord and the landlord’s suggestion to the resident that he needed to provide authorisation would have likely caused distress and avoidable inconvenience. It is also of concern that the landlord did not appear to check its own tenancy records, which would likely have led it adopt a different position. Orders have therefore been made at the end of this report for the landlord to apologize to the resident, write to him to clarify its position regarding whether his wife is considered a joint tenant as per the existing tenancy agreement and to pay the resident an appropriate level of compensation as redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. Records show the resident contacted the landlord in July 2020, when he referred to previous complaints which he said the landlord had not responded to and raising non-specific concerns about the landlord’s poor service. This investigation has not seen evidence of any prior complaints made by the resident, nor what these complaints regarded. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to him to either acknowledge his contact or make further enquiries regarding his areas of concern. This was not appropriate and did not treat the resident fairly. It would also have left him feeling ignored.
  2. This investigation has not seen further evidence of the resident chasing any complaints with the landlord until he forwarded his email of July 2020 to its Customer Service team in March 2022 with no additional comment. At this stage, the landlord would have been unclear what the specific issues the resident was raising were, so it was reasonable that it sent him a general response the same day. However, rather than provide him with the Complaints Team’s contact email and advise him to send a further email to them regarding any outstanding complaints, it would have been more customer focussed had it passed on his correspondence to the Complaints Team itself to ensure this was properly logged, particularly given the passage of time since his original email.
  3. Once the resident contacted the Ombudsman in May 2022 to advise he had still not received a response, the landlord failed to appropriately engage with the complaint, despite the Ombudsman’s involvement. Other than one email to the resident in June 2022 when it asked him for more information, it did not communicate with either him or the Ombudsman as per its complaints procedure or its obligations as a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This resulted in the Ombudsman issuing the landlord with a CHFO in October 2022 due its failure to respond at all to the resident’s complaint. Indeed, there is no record of the landlord even acknowledging the CHFO once received, and this raises serious concerns regarding how the landlord was handling complaints during this time. However, it is noted that the Ombudsman met with the landlord earlier this year to discuss its wider issues with complaint handling during this period and it advised it had put steps in place to improve its performance.
  4. After the Ombudsman wrote again to the landlord in November 2022 to advise the service considered that its complaint process had now been exhausted – correspondence that was again unacknowledged – the landlord did finally provide the resident with a stage 2 complaint response. However, the quality of its response was poor. It included an initially erroneously reference to its inability to resolve the complaint at stage 1 when no response had been issued, misspelled the email address it directed the resident to contact regarding a compensation offer and failed to properly signpost him to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied with its response, contrary to its obligations under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  5. As noted above, its position regarding the resident’s wife’s tenancy status appeared to be incorrect and there was no evidence of it having properly investigated this during the complaint response. Nor was there evidence of it having properly investigated his concerns regarding repairs, with the landlord failing to address any of the reported delays or failures to respond to his repair reports or providing information about any actions it may have undertaken and simply suggesting it would carry out an inspection of his kitchen as a resolution to the complaint. While agreeing to inspect the kitchen was an appropriate step to take, it did nothing to address the resident’s concerns about repair delays and his reports apparently not having been responded to or provide any insight as to why that may have been the case. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to learn from the concerns the resident raised, contrary to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  6. Regarding the delay in providing a complaint response, the landlord advised it was “regrettable” that the additional information he provided in June 2022 had not been “picked up” but stopped short of offering an apology, which the Ombudsman considers would have been reasonable. It also did not provide any further explanation as to why it had failed to progress the complaint, despite the resident’s contact and additional prompting from the Ombudsman. This was not appropriate and again shows no evidence of the landlord carrying out any kind of investigation into what went wrong, meaning it missed the opportunity to identify any potential learning from the case. It did however acknowledge the “distress and inconvenience” that would have been caused by his need to chase a response and offered a total of £500 compensation to reflect this. While this award was broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would have expected to see regarding its failure to provide a response, as it was awarded after the landlord’s complaint procedure was already considered exhausted, it cannot be deemed reasonable redress to the complaint. 
  7. After the resident’s complaint was referred to the Ombudsman, the landlord was asked to provide all information relevant to the complaint. However, just prior to the determination being issued, the resident made the Ombudsman aware that the repair elements of his complaint had already been addressed via a disrepair claim. Having been logged in January 2023, this was settled in June 2023 via an agreed schedule of works and a compensation payment. When the landlord submitted information to this investigation in November 2023, it failed to include any reference to the disrepair claim or settlement. This raises serious concerns regarding the landlord’s internal communication and whether its complaints team and legal services are aware of actions taken by either party.
  8. Once the Ombudsman made further enquiries with the landlord in December 2023, the complaints team initially stated they were unaware of any legal procedure having taken place, with the responding Customer Resolutions Manager (CRM) advising they had only begun their role the previous month. While the CRM responded appropriately and assisted the Ombudsman by obtaining the relevant information promptly, the fact they did not have ready access to the information is of further concern and raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping.
  9. Overall, there was severe maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the complaint. This is due to its failure to engage with the complaint from May 2022 to November 2022, despite the involvement of the Ombudsman. While it did finally provide a stage 2 response, this was after its complaint procedure had already been deemed to be exhausted, it contained errors and did not give the impression that any aspects of the complaint had been fully investigated. The landlord is therefore ordered to provide a written apology to the resident regarding its failure to properly progress his complaint, with an explanation regarding what went wrong, and pay additional compensation to reflect the poor standard of its final response.
  10. Finally, it is noted that in a previous determination (reference 202200752, issued in May 2023), the landlord was ordered to carry out a review of its record keeping. In response to the Ombudsman, the landlord advised it had “developed a procedure to improve this and will develop an e-learning course to supplement this”. Given the fact that, in this case, the landlord failed to advise the Ombudsman that some aspects of the complaint had already been addressed via a disrepair claim, concerns remain about its record keeping. A further order is therefore made for the landlord to produce a report for the Ombudsman which includes details regarding the procedure it has put in place to improve its record keeping and whether the aforementioned e-learning has been developed and rolled out to all staff. It should also advise what steps it will take to ensure its complaints team are kept abreast of any legal proceedings relevant to their cases. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord regarding its responses to the resident’s wife when she made contact on his behalf.
    2. Severe maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repair issues, including reports of mould in his kitchen and broken kitchen units is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

  1. From the evidence provided by the landlord, the resident’s wife appears to be a joint tenant rather than someone who was not, in the landlord’s words, “a named tenant”. It is therefore unclear why the landlord was unwilling to discuss tenancy issues with her without authorisation from the resident and why he was asked to provide this. Additionally, there was limited evidence the landlord investigated the issue appropriately, instead just reiterating its policy, which the Ombudsman believes should not have been applied in this case. 
  2. Although this investigation has not seen evidence of previous complaints made by the resident, it is not disputed that the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a complaint response in May 2022. It failed to do so and did not act in line with its complaint procedure or its obligations as a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. While it did eventually provide a response and offered compensation, this was after its complaint procedure had been exhausted and it was of poor quality, with no indication any of the resident’s concerns had been properly investigated. It also failed to provide the Ombudsman with up to date information regarding the status of all aspects of the complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 5 weeks of this report (extended by 1 week due to the intervening holiday period):
    1. Pay the resident £1050 compensation regarding its poor handling of his complaint. This consists of the £500 already awarded in its final complaint response, if this has not already been paid, an additional £300 to reflect the poor quality of its complaint response and £250 in recognition of its responses to his wife when she made contact. 
    2. Write to the resident to:
      1. Apologize for its failure to progress his complaint. 
      2. Clarify its position regarding whether his wife is considered a joint tenant and whether the resident still needs to provide written authorisation for her to discuss tenancy issues.
      3. This letter should be sent by a member of staff at Director level.
    3. Provide the Ombudsman with a report outlining its new record keeping processes, an update on its e-learning programme and the steps it will take to ensure all information relevant to the Ombudsman’s investigations is provided going forward.