Wandle Housing Association Limited (202230003)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230003

Wandle Housing Association Limited

16 December 2024

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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of outstanding communal repairs.
2. Complaint.
This report has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of a 3 bedroom flat, which he purchased in February 2010. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. Under the terms of his lease, the resident pays a service charge to the landlord towards the maintenance and cleaning of communal areas.
On 14 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the communal car park had “fallen into disrepair”. He said that the fence around the car park was “falling apart” and was dangerous. Furthermore, the surface was “a trip hazard” and needed to be replaced. He added that there was a hole to an internal wall in the communal area that required patching up. The landlord acknowledged his email on 20 September 2022. It then wrote to him again between 27 and 28 September 2022 to say it would look into whether it could resurface the car park. It stated that it would also have to confirm whether the fence was its responsibility. In addition, it asked the resident to send it a photograph of the hole in the communal hallway.
Between 13 October and 15 December 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord a number of times to ask it for an update. The landlord responded on 20 December 2022 to say it had received a quote for the resurfacing work and that it would make enquiries on how to proceed. Once it had the correct information, it would write to all the residents. It added that it had raised jobs to attend to the fence and hole in the communal hallway and provided reference numbers for both repairs.
On 23 and 30 January, and 8 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for an update on the repairs. He raised a stage 1 complaint on 13 February 2023 and stated that:
1. 4 months prior, he had asked the landlord if it could resurface the communal car park and repair the fence around it. Since then, it had made no progress and had yet to consult him on the available options.
2. He had scheduled 2 calls with it over the previous 2 weeks to discuss the matter but it had been unavailable on both occasions.
3. He was concerned that the works were not being addressed, which could lead to further remediation work being necessary.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 March 2023 to chase it for an acknowledgement of his complaint. It responded on the same day to say that it had already raised a repair for the fence, and had contacted its scheduling team for an update. It asked him to let it know if he still wanted to raise a complaint. The resident wrote to the landlord the following day to confirm he did wish to raise a complaint. He said that it had been 6 months since he reported the repairs and he was not satisfied with the landlord’s lack of progress or engagement. He added that he wanted the work “to be done properly rather than a temporary patch up”. He felt the whole fence needed to be replaced and the car park resurfaced.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 21 March 2023. It stated that:
1. An operative had attended the communal car park on 30 January 2023 and reported that 2 fence panels needed to be replaced. It had scheduled the repair to be carried out on 4 April 2023.
2. It had inspected the communal areas on 20 January 2023 but was unable to find the damage to the wall that the resident had reported.
3. It hoped its response had addressed his concerns and that it “offered reassurance” it was listening.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 March 2023 to follow up on the progress of the repairs he had reported. He reiterated that he felt the whole fence needed to be replaced. The landlord responded on 29 March 2023 to say that it would need to issue a section 20 notice as the cost of the works would be more than £250 per resident. It added that it would attend to carry out a report on the fence and advise on the next steps. The resident wrote to it again on 4 April 2024 to say that he had chased it “numerous times” and the only progress made was that it had established that it was responsible for the fence. He asked it to escalate his complaint. After receiving no acknowledgement, the resident approached us on 30 April 2023. We wrote to the landlord on the same day and asked it to provide the resident with a stage 2 response no later than 23 May 2023.
The landlord acknowledged his stage 2 complaint on 3 May 2023 and issued its response on 7 September 2023. It stated that:
1. It had attended the building on 20 January 2023 to inspect the internal and external communal areas but could not find any chips or holes. If it still needed attention, he should “not hesitate to contact” it and it would raise a further repair.
2. It had attended to the car park fence to “make safe” and raised further works to replace 2 concrete posts.
3. It had informed him that it had to carry out a party wall search to confirm whether it was responsible for the fence.
4. It found it had followed its policies and procedures but was sorry he was disappointed with its service.
The resident approached the Ombudsman again on 4 October 2023. He stated that the repairs he had reported were still outstanding. He added that the fence around the car park was “falling apart” and that the car park surface had “fallen into disrepair” and was “dangerous”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states appointed repairs are carried out at the earliest, mutually convenient time. Its service standard is to complete these within 28 days. Where is it agreed that a repair should be treated as “urgent”, it will complete the work within 7 days. It completes major works within 90 calendar days unless agreed with the resident or if they form part of a large scale programme. These are repairs that cost over £1,000 and are “deemed either extensive” or an ”improvement to the existing provision”.
The same policy provides a number of key elements of its repair procedures. These include:
1. Prompt, correct and accurate diagnosis of repair faults with work specified on orders, wherever possible.
2. Communicating effectively where complex jobs are likely to take more time to ensure expectations are effectively managed. and that residents understand the timeframes around their repairs.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy stated that it will responds to a stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of it being acknowledged. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Where it has to extend a response beyond a further 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 for stage 2, it will agree this with the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Reports of outstanding communal repairs

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 a number of 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 resident reported concerns on 14 September 2022 about the communal car park. He stated that the fence around the area was “dangerous” and that the surface was “a trip hazard”. There is no evidence the landlord had responded appropriately to those safety concerns. It cannot demonstrate it had carried out any kind of risk assessment or a timely inspection to establish the level of disrepair and the works that were needed to make it safe. Although it stated in its complaint responses that it had attended to the fence to “make safe”, there is no evidence to show it had taken any specific action to make the area safe or what work, if any, it had carried out. The landlord has therefore not demonstrated that it adequately considered it duty of care towards its residents.
Furthermore, the stage 1 and 2 responses provide conflicting information on the dates of attendance and the work the operative had recommended. In the stage 1 response, it states that 2 fence panels needed to be replaced and that the work was scheduled for 4 April 2023. It is unclear from the records whether the landlord had carried out this work on the specified date. In its stage 2 response, it states that 2 concrete posts needed to be replaced but gave no details of when this repair was booked. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord resulting in its inability to provide reliable and accurate information.
It is acknowledged that landlords are expected to responsibly manage the funds it receives from service charges. It is reasonable that they carry out the appropriate checks before deciding whether works are necessary. Although the fence may not have needed to be fully replaced or the car park area fully resurfaced, it should be able to demonstrate that it reasonably explored why this was the case.
The landlord has not provided evidence it had carried out any proper inspections to explore whether the works the resident had requested were required. It was therefore unable to adequately support its decision that only minimal repairs were needed. It is noted that the landlord made reasonable efforts to respond to the resident’s reports of a hole in a communal wall. The records show it had attended to inspect for the damage but could not find any. It was appropriate that it sought more information from the resident as to the location of the hole so it could carry out the repair.
It is noted that it later appeared to alter its view and agree with the resident’s position that the fence should be replaced. However, it has not been able to demonstrate it made a proper re-assessment of the condition of the fence before agreeing a replacement was appropriate. It is noted that, on 29 March 2023, 6 months after he had reported that it was “falling apart”, the landlord told the resident it would complete a report on the fence. It is unclear what this meant, or whether this involved carrying out an inspection. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on this or that it had produced a report as per its commitment. This demonstrates the landlord’s failure in managing expectations or following up on its agreed actions.
There is no indication the landlord had attempted to consult with other residents to gauge their views on the condition of the car park. It could have reached out to them either by letter or arranged a meeting to discuss the matter. This would have given them an opportunity to raise any concerns they may have about the communal car park. It would have helped guide the landlord on the best way of progressing any repairs prior to potentially issuing a section 20 notice. It should be noted that the landlord acted appropriately in alerting the resident to the fact it would have to carry out a section 20 consultation if it went ahead with the requested works. It was also appropriate that it explained the nature of the section 20 notice to him, and why this would have to be issued.
The records show that the landlord was slow in following up on actions it had said it would carry out. On 20 December 2022, it told him that it had received a quote for the resurfacing work and that it would write to all residents when it knew “how to proceed”. There is no evidence it provided him with any further updates until the end of March 2023, around 3 months later. This was when it told him that it would need to issue a section 20 notice for the works.
Furthermore, it had told the resident on 28 September 2022 that it needed to make enquiries to ascertain who was responsible for the fence. It is not until 6 months after this that records show it had established the fence was its responsibility. It is unclear why it could not have done this in a timelier manner. The landlord has not provided any records to show who it had contacted to make enquiries as to its responsiblities. However, it did state that, if it found that it was not responsible for the fence, it would ask the owner to carry out the repairs. This was appropriate.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s communication was consistently poor. There is no indication it made reasonable efforts to provide the resident with regular progress updates. The resident had to continually prompt the landlord for up-to-date information, often without any response. The records show he made significant efforts to chase the landlord for information, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations.
It is noted that the landlord informed the resident several times that its delays in responding were due to it receiving a “high volume of enquiries” and “staffing issues”. It is acknowledged that landlords can sometimes face challenges that will affect the service it delivers, particularly at times of high demand. However, landlords should make reasonable efforts to ensure they are sufficiently resourced to ensure communication with residents is as timely as possible. The landlord should be able to demonstrate it has a proper repair tracking system in place to monitor requests and update residents accordingly. It should not be left to residents to continually chase the landlord for information or to make complaints before getting progress reports.
It is noted that by November 2023, the landlord had still made no progress in updating the resident on whether it would replace the fence or resurface the car park. This was nearly a year after the resident initially raised his concerns. Within its complaint responses, the landlord failed to acknowledge or offer any apology for its delays and lack of response to enquiries. In addition, it has not considered whether an offer of compensation would be appropriate in recognition of its poor service.
The landlord’s inadequate communication and failure to manage the resident’s expectations demonstrates a significant lack of customer focus. Its inability to provide adequate updates would have added to the resident’s uncertainty over whether it was taking any action to address his concerns about the car park area. That the landlord did not make reasonable efforts to provide responses to the resident’s enquiries or update him about the communal works would have caused him unnecessary distress and inconvenience. This is a failing and amounts to maladministration.

Complaint

The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 27 working days. This was outside the timescales as set out with the landlord’s complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Furthermore, it failed to acknowledge both his stage 1 complaint and his escalation request. It was only after the resident had prompted it to acknowledge his stage 1 complaint that it confirmed his request. Furthermore, it only acknowledged his escalation to stage 2 following intervention by the Ombudsman. That the resident had to take additional time and trouble to ensure the landlord was progressing his complaint was a failing.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 20 working days after he had initially made it. However, it took a further 90 working days to issue its stage 2 response. This demonstrates excessively protracted complaint handling. In addition, there is no evidence the landlord sent any holding replies, or made any effort to explain the delays to the resident. The landlord should have advised the resident it needed more time, and told him why.
The Code says that responses to stage 2 complaints should not exceed a further 30 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties. It is important that landlords carry out thorough investigations and we acknowledge these can sometimes take longer than expected to complete. However, landlords should always ensure they adequately communicate any potential delays to their residents. This will help maintain transparency, along with a positive working relationship between the landlord and resident throughout the process. It would also help reassure residents they have not been forgotten about. That it failed to inform the resident its responses would be delayed or to agree a new timescales with him was a departure both from its own policy and the Code.
The Code also requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. Both responses failed to properly address the concerns the resident raised. It made no mention of his requests to resurface the car park, or what actions it was taking to consider his request for those works to be carried out. Its stage 2 response appears to be a reiteration of the stage 1 response and offers little additional information. Furthermore, it gave no information relating to any of the actions it had previously agreed to take to progress major works to the car park area. The evidence therefore suggests that the landlord failed to adequately check its records prior to responding to the complaint. This resulted in the resident receiving a poorly investigated response.
Both its responses failed to acknowledge or offer an apology for its poor complaint handling. That the landlord departed from its complaints policy and the Code, and that it provided poor and inadequate complaint responses amounts to maladministration. Our recent investigations into the landlord have identified that this is a recurring theme. We have therefore made an order relating to training for complaint handling staff which should help to avoid repetition of the issues highlighted in this case.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. These should including details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
The evidence that the landlord provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs and complaints to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
The landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports during the period covered by the complaint. Furthermore, its repair log is unclear as to when it completed repairs and it was only from internal correspondence that this investigation was able to estimate when operatives had attended. The landlord has provided minimal contemporaneous records to show it made reasonable efforts to follow up on the repairs the resident had requested.
The landlord’s poor record keeping would likely have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication, poor complaint handling and lack of updates to the resident. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was service failure in its record keeping.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023, we published our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the spotlight report. Other recent investigations into complaints about the landlord have also identified multiple failings in the landlord’s record keeping. We therefore encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our spotlight report unless it can provide evidence that it has self-assessed already.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding communal repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident, in line with the Service’s Remedies Guidance. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
2. Pay the resident £400 compensation, which is calculated as follows:
  1. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication and failure to follow up on agreed actions.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
The landlord may have completed all repairs to the communal car park that have been established as necessary. If it has not, it must provide the resident with an action plan on how it intends to follow up on his request for works to the communal car park area. This should include an agreement on how and when it will update residents on any works it intends to carry out. It should also ensure it provides residents with estimated completion times for those works. It should provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has done this within 6 weeks of receiving this report.
Within 8 weeks of receiving this report, the landlord is to consider further training for complaint handling staff. The training should ensure that staff are fully aware of the provisions contained within the Code, especially the importance of properly addressing all aspects of a complaint, and openly acknowledging shortcomings and failings in service where these have been identified. The landlord is to provide the Service with evidence it has carried out the abovementioned orders within the timescale as stated above.