Wandle Housing Association Limited (202315557)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315557

Wandle Housing Association Limited

19 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. service charges, pest control and another resident feeding pests.
2. the use of her garden.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. record keeping.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom house with a garden. In addition to rent, the resident pays a ‘fixed’ service charge. The landlord said it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, in her correspondence with it she said she has asthma and bronchitis.
In February 2023 the landlord reviewed the rent and service charge and notified the resident of an increase in these. Its letter said service charges included communal electricity, grounds maintenance and pest control.
Later, in March 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord querying her service charge. She said:
1. she had never seen grounds maintained.
2. she understood street lighting was paid via her council tax, so she wanted it to confirm the communal electricity she was paying.
3. the pest issue was due to a large development on her “doorstep”. Therefore, she questioned why she was having to pay for this.
The landlord responded to the resident on 4 April 2023. It said:
1. the resident and other households shared a communal garden, and the cost of maintaining this was shared.
2. it maintained street lights “over the years” and this was why it charged maintenance.
3. it had completed pest control for the whole community because of the ongoing building work in the area.
Later in April 2023 the resident responded to the landlord. She questioned why it was not asking for the developer to cover the cost of pest control. She said the landlord continued to allow a resident to “feed vermin”. She also said she wanted a rent rebate for the loss of use of her garden due to the development works.
After the resident raised concerns about the time it was taking to respond to her, the landlord raised the matter as a complaint. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 May 2023. It said:
1. it had spoken to the resident to explain the difference between rent and service charges. The resident was unhappy with the explanation and considered it had only provided “excuses to defend the organisation”.
2. the resident wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process.
The following day the resident escalated her complaint. She reiterated concerns she had previously raised. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to her on 5 July 2023. It said:
1. there were no communal gardens. Residents were charged grounds maintenance for weeding, cleaning and attending to communal planters throughout the estate.
2. pest control attended monthly for communal baiting, and the cost of this amounted to £0.10 per week for the resident.
3. it was working with the developer and other agencies and had assisted with clearing bushes and investigating the drainage system.
4. it was charged by an energy company for maintenance and for energy supplied to the street light on the estate.
The landlord said it was sorry the resident was unable to use her garden because of ongoing construction work behind her property. It said it had met with developers about the ongoing impact these works were having on residents. It noted:
1. as a result of its discussions, the developers had placed a screen across the rear of the resident’s garden in order to increase privacy.
2. residents could continue to use their garden while work was ongoing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord states on its website that its fixed service charges to resident will include costs for services, such as cleaning or maintenance plus an administration fee.
The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the landlord may increase or decrease the service charge due to an increase in the cost of providing the services and/or the cost of providing additional services.
The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy says it will arrange for pest control services to treat communal pest issues, where issues are part of a wider infestation affecting a block.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states that it will respond 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 working days for stage 2, it will agree this with the resident.

Scope of investigation

In her complaint to the landlord the resident raised concerns about the level of service charge she was paying. The level of service charge payable is something that falls within the remit of the First Tier Tribunal. As such, the resident may wish to refer her complaint to it accordingly. While we have not assessed the reasonableness of the service charge itself, we have investigated how the landlord responded to resident’s concerns.

Service charges

Grounds maintenance

The resident told the landlord in March 2023 of her concerns about the service charge in respect of grounds maintenance. When responding in April 2023 the landlord said that this was for maintaining a communal garden she shared with other residents on the estate. It is apparent this response confused the resident. She told the landlord later that month that there was no communal garden.
When the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 May 2023 it noted the resident was unhappy with the response she had received about the communal garden charge. It said it had spoken to her to “explain that the rental charges were different from the service charged for the property”. But we have seen no record of its discussion with the resident. The landlord should reasonably have made and stored adequate notes of this discussion. Without doing so it cannot demonstrate how it was addressing and responding to her concerns. It was a record keeping failing.
Even if it had fully discussed these concerns by telephone, the landlord should then have set out in its stage 1 complaint response the key points it had discussed. Instead, its response was exceptionally brief, with only sparse information, noting the resident was unhappy with its explanation. As a result, it is unclear to what extent the landlord discussed or explained the grounds maintenance charge.
The resident was confused by the landlord’s earlier reference to maintaining a communal garden. This point should reasonably have been addressed by the landlord when it provided its stage 1 complaint response. It was not a complex issue to resolve. But the landlord did not do so, and the resident remained unclear about why she was be charged for grounds maintenance. When she requested escalation of her complaint, she said there was just “a bush”, rather than a communal garden.
The landlord clarified in its stage 2 complaint response that there was no communal garden. It said the grounds maintenance charge related to weeding, cleaning and attending to communal planters. But it should have provided this clarity much sooner. Had it done so, it could have saved the resident the time and trouble of raising the matter repeatedly. Further, given the resident had said she understood another resident stopped gardeners from maintaining a bush, the landlord should reasonably have addressed this point. That it did not so do so was a failure which meant it was left unanswered. We have ordered that the landlord provide a response to the resident on this issue.
We note the resident subsequently requested information from the landlord relating to the dates it had maintained communal planters/bushes. It is unclear from the information we have seen whether it has provided this information. We have recommended that it contact the resident to provide information about when communal planters/bushes were maintained, should she still require this.

Communal electricity

The resident queried why she was paying for communal electricity. She said she considered street lighting was provided by her local authority. In responding to this point in April 2023 the landlord said it maintained street lights and charged residents for the costs of this. As noted earlier, it did not record what it discussed with her on this point or detail this in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord should have provided clear information to the resident to help her to understand why she was being charged for communal electricity. It should have been evident that she understood street lighting was maintained by the local authority. In these circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain in greater detail what the charge related to.
When the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint, it set out the location of the street light. It said it was charged by an energy company for energy and maintenance of this. While that response was clear, the landlord should reasonably have gone further in its response. The resident had asked it when the street lighting had been maintained. The landlord should either have provided this information or explained why it was unable to do so. That it did neither was a failing. The resident’s questions about the service charge she was paying were understandable. It should have made reasonable attempts to providing information about when the light was maintained. Doing so would have provided reassurance to the resident. As such, we have ordered that it contact the resident to provide further information about this, should she still require it.
In correspondence following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the resident said she had been told by an officer for the local authority that it would typically maintain street lights. In response, the landlord said it would be happy to review any information from the local authority and clarify any “uncertainties” with them. We note the resident did not take up this offer. We have recommended that the landlord repeat this offer to the resident.

Pest control and that another resident was feeding rats

In response to the resident’s concerns about why she was paying for pest control, the landlord said this was being completed due to ongoing building works. The resident subsequently questioned why this cost was not being covered by the developer. When the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response it provided a reasonable explanation of its charges for pest control. It said that it was attending to complete monthly communal baiting to address issues residents had reported on the estate. It also noted that it was working with the developer and other agencies to tackle the pest issues.
We acknowledge that the resident considered the developer should be responsible for the cost of pest control. But in line with its neighbourhood management policy, the landlord had a responsibility to take appropriate action to address pest issues. While it provided the resident with a reasonable response on this point, it failed to address her concern that another resident was contributing to the pest infestation by feeding rats. The resident had also raised this concern in February 2023, without any adequate response. Due to data protection, the landlord may not have been able to provide specific information of action it was taking against the other resident. But it should reasonably have made an attempt to explain what it would do to address this issue. Failing to address this point at all would have resulted in the resident feeling her valid concerns were being ignored. As such, we have ordered that the landlord provide the resident with information about action it has taken to address this issue.
Overall, we have found failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about service charges, pest control and another resident feeding pests. It provided misleading information in response to her questions about service charges. It also failed to provide adequate responses to all questions. It did not provide the resident with timely information and reassurance on these issues. This has resulted in her spending more time and trouble pursuing matters. Overall, when taken together, these failings amount to maladministration. We have considered the circumstances and made reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (the remedies guidance). We have ordered an award aimed at recognising the impact of these failings.

Use of her garden

The resident raised concerns that she has not been able to use her garden due to ongoing construction work at a development site behind her home. Records we have seen show she initially raised concerns with the landlord in March 2022. In response to this, in August 2022 the landlord told her that it had attended a “walk about” with residents in relation to issues with the development. It said that it was due to meet with the developer and would try to find an “amicable solution”. However, while the landlord told us that it met with the developer in August 2022, we have seen no record of this meeting. It should reasonably have maintained an appropriate record so it could demonstrate how it had responded to the resident’s concerns.
Subsequently, in September 2022, the resident told the landlord she was still waiting for it to respond to her concerns about not being able to use her garden. She questioned why she should have to pay rent for this and expressed dissatisfaction with the privacy screens that had been erected. But we have seen no evidence the landlord responded to this. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns, the landlord should reasonably have arranged to inspect issues. Doing so would have helped it to assess whether there were any other steps it could take to resolve the resident’s concerns. That there is no evidence it even considered this is a failing. It is acknowledged that the construction work and the development were not within the landlord’s control. But it was still reasonable and appropriate for it to consider and respond to concerns raised by residents.
The resident raised concerns again in February and April 2023. She said that she was still waiting for the landlord to respond to her request for a reduction in the rent payable as she was unable to use her garden. But the landlord did not even attempt to respond to her about this until 24 May 2023. At this time, it noted the resident’s concerns. But, as set out previously, it made no note of what it discussed with the resident at this time. Nor did its complaint response provide any response to this concern.
As a result, the resident had to spend more time and trouble raising the issue. The landlord responded in its stage 2 response on 5 July 2023. It appropriately directed the resident to report issues of dust or noise to the local authority. But it again failed to consider inspecting whether any further steps were possible to resolve the resident’s ongoing concerns about privacy. Instead, it said a privacy screen had been placed at the rear of her garden and that she could continue to make use of her garden. But, had the landlord appropriately reviewed previous correspondence, it should have seen that the privacy screen had not resolved her concerns.
The resident’s frustration at the landlord’s failure to fully consider her concerns is apparent from emails she sent it in August 2023. At this time, she said it had not visited her property to understand the issues with privacy. She said its response “insults me”. She said it should have attended to look at her property itself rather than just accept the developer’s “creative ideas”. While it is unclear whether any further steps would have been possible, the landlord missed the opportunity to fully consider whether it could do anything else to address her concerns. This caused the resident time and trouble chasing it for a response and frustration at its failure to appropriately inspect the issue. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns. While records indicate that construction work is due to finish in Winter 2024, we have ordered that it contact the resident to arrange to inspect her concerns about privacy issues in her garden.
We acknowledge the resident wants the landlord to consider a reduction in her rent. We have found that the landlord could have done more to address and inspect her concerns about this. But the construction work at the development was not within its control. It appropriately directed the resident to the local authority to report issues regarding noise and dust and other environmental issues.
The level of rent payable forms part of the binding agreement between the resident and the landlord. It remains payable as long as the tenancy is in place. The Ombudsman may consider an award of compensation based on the level of rent payable in some circumstances. These include where the landlord has failed to take appropriate action to address repair issues in line with its obligations, leading to a loss of amenity. We acknowledge that the resident has said she has asthma and bronchitis and was not using her garden due to dust and privacy issues. We also acknowledge that the development caused some inconvenience and concern to her. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that the garden had been rendered unusable as a result of repairs that the landlord was required to undertake. For that reason, an award for loss of amenity would not be appropriate in this case.
With consideration to the circumstances, we have ordered the landlord to make an award to the resident aimed at recognising the impact of failings we have identified. We have also ordered that it remind staff of the importance of appropriately inspecting concerns raised by residents.

Complaint handling

The landlord raised a complaint for the resident on 12 May 2023. It did so after noting contact from her via social media. Its complaints policy states that it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. Given this, its response on 24 May 2023 was timely. But the landlord confused matters by saying its response was outside the “10 days” target. Instead of incorrectly noting this in its response, it should have apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s earlier enquiries about her service charge. That it did not do so was a failing.
While the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was delayed by only a few days, it should still have contacted the resident in advance to inform her of this. It had told her on 12 June 2023 that she should expect to receive a formal response within 20 working days, by 30 June 2023. If it was not going to meet this deadline, it should have communicated and agreed an extension with the resident in advance. That it did not do so was contrary to the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and its own policy.
As noted earlier, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was inadequate. It failed to address the resident’s concerns in any level of detail. It also failed to record details of its discussion with her. The landlord later acknowledged and apologised for failing to response to the resident’s concerns about service charges in greater detail. That was appropriate. But it should also have gone on to consider whether any compensation award was appropriate. That was particularly as it acknowledged the resident had been inconvenienced and had needed to escalate the complaint for issues to be addressed.
Given it had identified its initial complaint response was inadequate, the landlord should have ensured its stage 2 response robustly covered all issues and points raised. But as noted above, it failed to do so. Issues such as the resident’s concerns that rats were being fed by another resident, were given no response. In addition, it failed to identify what else it could do to address the resident’s concerns about the use of her garden. The landlord missed the opportunity to take timely steps to resolve the resident’s concerns. These were complaint handling failings. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord’s complaint handling failings meant the resident experienced frustration and inconvenience and spent more time pursuing matters. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, we have ordered that the landlord make an award to her aimed at putting things right.
In a report recently issued to the landlord, we have ordered that it consider further training for its complaint handling staff. This is with the aim of ensuring that staff are aware of the importance of addressing all issues, and of agreeing new timescales with residents when complaint responses are delayed. In light of this order, and to avoid duplication, we have not made a further order in respect of this. However, we have ordered that it remind complaint handling staff of the importance of making adequate records of telephone discussions with residents.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about service charges, pest control and another resident feeding pests.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the use of her garden.
3. service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
4. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £600, made up of:
  1. £150 for the impact of failings identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about service charges, pest control and another resident feeding pests.
  2. £250 for the impact of failings identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the use of her garden.
  3. £200 for the impact of its complaint handling failings.
3. provide a response to the resident regarding her concern that another resident was stopping gardeners from maintaining a bush.
4. contact the resident to provide further information about when street lighting has been maintained, should she still require this.
5. provide the resident with a response to confirm how it has addressed issues with another resident feeding pests.
6. contact the resident to arrange to inspect her concerns about privacy issues in her garden.
7. remind staff of the importance of inspecting concerns raised by residents when appropriate.
8. remind complaint handling staff of the importance of making adequate records of telephone discussions with residents.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to offer to:
1. provide further information to her about when communal planters/bushes were maintained.
2. provide her with further information about pest control work it has completed.
3. consider information she has from the local authority about street lighting.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to check vulnerabilities it has recorded for her.