Wandle Housing Association Limited (202324441)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324441

Wandle Housing Association Limited

22 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Request to be compensated for the impact of a leaking hot water tap.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 2-bedroom flat.
In mid-May 2023, the resident reported a problem with her toilet and that her bathroom tap was dripping. An operative attended on 30 May 2023 and fixed the toilet. There are no records, that this Service has seen, showing the operative’s findings on the dripping tap or that any further repairs were raised to address the problem.
Around 2 months later, the resident reported that she had been advised by the operative who attended in May 2023 that a part was needed to fix the leaking tap but there was no contact since. A repair was raised but 2 appointments in August 2023 did not go ahead because the operatives were unable to gain access.
On 11 August 2023 the resident complained that:
1. She booked an afternoon appointment and received confirmation, but the operative attended in the morning, when she was out.
2. The hot tap had been running constantly because the repair was outstanding and this had led to a large water bill.

The resident asked for the reimbursement of the water bill increase and for the hot tap to be repaired.

In its stage 1 response of 17 August 2023, the landlord apologised that:
1. The attending operative on 30 May 2023 made no notes about the tap.
2. Administrative/system errors had led to the 2 appointments in August not going ahead at the times agreed with the resident.

The landlord acknowledged the abovementioned failings and apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused. It also awarded £10 compensation for a missed appointment. However, the landlord stated it was unable to offer compensation for the increased water usage because the resident was able to claim through her water company. It said it had included a copy of the application form she needed to complete to recover these costs.

After the tap was repaired in mid-October 2023, the resident escalated her complaint around 2 weeks later. She did so on the grounds that:
1. She had evidence that her energy costs had also increased. A copy of her recent energy bill and one from the previous year had been attached.
2. There was more than 1 missed appointment.

The resident asked to be compensated for the above and for the inconvenience she had been caused by the delay in resolving the repair. She later added in an email from 21 November 2023 that she had an estimated combined bill for her water and energy costs of £1000, caused by the landlord’s “negligence,” which she was struggling to pay.

The landlord responded at stage 2 on 4 December 2023. In this it found:
1. It had failed to raise a follow–up appointment after the one missed on 11 August 2023.
2. The repair was not completed within the guidelines and timescales outlined in its repair policy.

The landlord confirmed that the repair had been completed on 1 September 2023. It also increased its offer of compensation to £40 to cover 4 missed appointments.

After the complaints process ended, the resident said she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered because it did not cover the £500 energy bill. The landlord responded again to this 4 months later. It acknowledged additional failings but advised its position on claiming water leakage costs. It also increased the compensation to £540, which it said was comprised of:
1. £40 for missed appointments.
2. £50 for the delay in resolving the complaint.
3. £150 for the delay in repairing the leak.
4. £300 for increased heating costs.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. She said she was caused inconvenience by missed appointments and delays, increase in her energy costs and financial worry. The resident is seeking further compensation.
The resident recently sent further energy bills to the landlord. The landlord advised her and this Service that it will consider these to determine if it should increase its offer for the energy costs and aims to respond in January 2025.

Assessment and findings

Tap repair

The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs within a ‘reasonable’ timescale under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. According to the landlord’s repair policy, it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 working days.
The resident reported that her tap was leaking on 13 May 2023. The repair records show that the landlord isolated the hot water tap on 1 September 2023, some 78 working days later. They also show the repair was completed on 16 October 2023, around 109 working days after the resident’s initial report. During that time, the landlord scheduled and confirmed 2 appointments, based on the available evidence, with the resident. However, the landlord did not keep to the appointment times which led to both appointments being rescheduled. The landlord clearly and significantly exceeded its timescales and did not then meet its obligations to complete the tap repair within a reasonable amount of time.
According to the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy, it will acknowledge when something has gone wrong, explain what actions it will take to put things right to prevent a reoccurrence. It states that any remedy “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of distress and specific financial loss” caused by service failure. Actions to put things right can include explanations, carrying out a specific action (such as a repair), and paying compensation. The landlord’s approach to resolving complaints is in-line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
Where compensation is offered, the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy states it will consider several factors to arrive on an amount. This may include the length of time the issues were ongoing and the cumulative impact of them on the resident. Again, this approach is consistent with the one the Ombudsman encourages in our remedy’s guidance. Unlike the Ombudsman’s guidance, the landlord’s policy does not specify what amounts it may award for certain impacts arising from its service failings.
At stage 1, the landlord took accountability for the 2 failed appointments in August 2023, which it indicated was either due to an administrative or system failure. It apologised and offered £10 compensation. This amount, as far as the Ombudsman has seen, is not specified in its policy as being the standard offering for a missed appointment. However, the approach to recognising the impact of failed appointments caused by the landlord with a token payment is in line with industry best practice. The amount therefore was not unreasonable. However, the landlord did fail, without explanation, to offer a remedy for both missed appointments. This was not in line with its approach to compensation or the Code. It did, however, revise its position on this aspect in response to the resident’s challenge, dated 1 November 2023, that there had been at least 1 more occasion that the landlord’s actions led to an appointment being missed.
In the stage 2 response dated 4 December 2023, the landlord increased its award to £40. There was no evidence the landlord scheduled and then missed more than 2 appointments. However, the resident said in her escalation request in November 2023 and the landlord accepted that a further appointment was agreed with her that was not booked. In the circumstances, we see no reason to question the landlord’s position. We are broadly satisfied then that the landlord took reasonable steps to put right the impact of the missed appointments on the resident. However, the landlord has not, in the Ombudsman’s view, shown that it has learned from the resident’s complaint. It has not demonstrated that it has followed its policy to take action to prevent a reoccurrence with appointment scheduling errors, as happened in this case. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to improve its service in this area.
One of the aspects of the resident’s initial complaint was that her water bill was much higher because of the delay in repairing her tap. The stage 1 response only referred, however, to the fact that there was no record of the tap in the notes of the operative who attended 2 weeks later. It also signposted the resident to claim through her water company by completing a ‘leakage allowance form.’ Although not specified in the landlord’s compensation policy, recovering costs from a water leak through the utility company is in line with the general approach taken by social landlords. It was not then unreasonable to signpost the resident to recover her costs in this way. However, the landlord did not sufficiently address her concern about the delay in the repair or give a decision about whether its actions (or lack of) had caused it. Section 5.6 of the Code (2022), in place at the time, required the landlord to “address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. Therefore, the landlord’s initial response fell short of the requirements of the Code. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to acknowledge and to offer an appropriate resolution, sooner than it did, for its failure to complete the tap repair up to that point.
In the stage 2 response from December 2023, the landlord acknowledged that it had not met its repair timescales. It was appropriate for the landlord to take accountability of its failings. However, it said the repair was completed on 1 September 2023. This was factually incorrect as the repair itself was not completed until 16 October 2023, as per the landlord’s records. Not providing a full and accurate account of the events had the effect of diminishing the extent of its failing, which was not reasonable.
As referenced above, the landlord is required under the relevant standards to take appropriate steps to put things right. The landlord reflected, in response to the resident’s complaint that her heating costs had also increased, that she had advised she had been further financially affected. It did not address this specifically. Additionally, the summary of the complaint included that the resident was seeking compensation for the emotional impact of the failings. This was also not addressed in the response. The landlord therefore did not meet its own standards and those set out in the Code. This was a failing.
The resident emailed the landlord twice in December 2023 stating that she did not accept the response. She indicated this was because it had overlooked her complaint that she had incurred energy costs of £500 from its failure to complete the tap repair sooner.
As outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code, once the complaints process is complete, the next stage for those dissatisfied with the response is to refer the matter to the Ombudsman. The landlord was not then required to respond again. However, it sent a third response around 4 months after the complaint process had ended. It was also after the resident had referred her concerns to this Service. This was more comprehensive than its previous ones and addressed the resident’s specific request to be compensated for increased utility bills and resulting distress.
The landlord advised this Service that, due to a change in management, it revisited the resident’s complaint in a “genuine effort” to resolve matters and having found that its previous attempts were poor. It advised that it now has a more robust quality checking system in place.
The Ombudsman believes that 3 core principles underpin good complaint handling. These are to:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The landlord issuing a third response was a deviation from its process and not compliant with the Code. However, the Ombudsman is not critical of it taking the approach in this case, given the impact on the resident and the failure to provide a suitable resolution during the complaints process. It would not have been fair for the landlord to wait until the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation with the knowledge that its previous responses were not good enough.
In its final response, the landlord recognised that having the hot tap running continuously would have led to increased costs, but that it would be “difficult to ascertain what would have been [her] normal usage”. It therefore awarded a payment of £300.
Where a tenant claims to have been caused a financial loss, practice is for landlords to compare the relative usage over the same period from the previous year. The resident had already sent copies of her energy bills covering mid-July to mid-August from 2022 and 2023 with her escalation to stage 2. This showed a large increase in usage from the previous year. The resident’s bill was also over £190 more than the previous year. However, cost is not an indication, in of itself, that someone has consumed more energy because the price fluctuates, as was the case here. It is evident, based on the evidence the resident provided, that her usage and, therefore, her bill increased.
In the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to offer a discretionary payment of £300. However, it would have also been reasonable to invite the resident to provide further evidence and offer to reimburse costs beyond £300 if shown. The landlord is currently reviewing further evidence from the resident. While it is not apparent in the available records why it agreed to revisit the reimbursement, it is reasonable in view of the resident’s concern that she remains out of pocket.
The landlord awarded £150 for the delay in repairing the leak. This amount is within the range that the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends in cases where failings have caused distress and inconvenience but is not expected to be lasting. It is therefore an appropriate amount that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reflects the impact on the resident over the 3 months the repair was outstanding and the distress caused by the increase in her utility bills.
Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has offered an appropriate level of compensation for the non-financial impact of its failings on the resident. It is also currently considering the resident’s evidence of her increased energy costs and is open to revising its original offer. Therefore, no further compensation, above the landlord’s original offer, has been ordered. It is, however, required to explain how it considered the resident’s evidence in determining its award for specific financial costs. Further, the landlord has not, in the Ombudsman’s view, demonstrated that it has taken learning from the failings that gave rise to the delay in repairing the resident’s tap. Therefore, a finding of service failure has been found and an order made to show learning.

Associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2-stage process. This includes that it will acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days. It then commits to respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If the landlord requires more time at either stage, it will explain this to the resident and will give a revised response date, which will be no later than a further 10 working days. This is in line with the Code.
At stage 1, it took the landlord 5 working days to respond, and at stage 2 it took 21 working days. As such, the landlord responses met, or closely met, required timescales. However, as previously mentioned in this report, neither response met the relevant standards. Aspects of the resident’s complaint were not addressed and the remedies offered did not go far enough to put things right for her.
Issuing a third response was, as advised earlier, outside of the landlord’s complaints process and the standards of the Code. However, the Ombudsman has found that it was reasonable, in the circumstances, for the landlord to make further attempts to remedy matters for the resident. This is because the resident had asked the landlord to revisit its response after the stage 2. The landlord had also identified issues with the quality of its complaint’s responses around that time.
In the landlord’s April 2024 response it apologised that its previous responses “did not sufficiently resolve [the resident’s] concerns”. It also offered £50 compensation for the delay caused. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord took accountability of its poor complaint responses and offered an appropriate remedy to put things right. It advised this Service that it has also changed its complaints process to improve the quality of its responses. While the landlord has taken some appropriate actions, the amount of compensation is not sufficient to remedy its complaint handling failings on the resident. As such, the landlord is ordered make a payment above its offer.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Request to be compensated for the impact of a leaking hot water tap.
2. Associated complaint

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide evidence showing it has complied with our orders to:
1. Write to the resident explaining the outcome of its consideration of her evidence of increased energy costs. It should clearly explain how it calculated the reimbursement costs it arrives at.
2. Pay the resident £290, comprised of:
  1. £40 for the missed appointments.
  2. £100 for the complaint handling failings.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the handling of the tap repair.
3. Consider what improvements it will or has already made to its processes or systems ensure repairs are completed within a reasonable time. This should include any changes to how it administers appointments scheduled with its tenants.