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

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202327977)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327977

Wandle Housing Association Limited

12 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. His reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Reconnecting the heating system in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy at the property began on 3 July 2017. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat within sheltered accommodation for older people. The landlord records that the resident has unspecified mental health conditions, for which it had previously referred him to the local community mental health team.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 November 2023 asking it to “turn on” the central heating in his property. The landlord responded on 10 November 2023. It said it had arranged an appointment for 13 November 2023 to reconnect the resident’s property to the block’s communal boiler. It said its contractor would attend between 1pm and 6pm.
  3. On 13 November 2023, the landlord’s repair contractor attended the property at 8am. It was unable to gain access and left a ‘calling card’. The resident emailed the landlord later that day expressing dissatisfaction that the contractor had attended earlier than scheduled. He asked the landlord to book another appointment for him.
  4. On the same day the resident wrote to the landlord. He claimed that:
    1. Neighbour A, the resident of the flat above his, was subjecting him to continuous “noise abuses” including loud music, stomping and banging on the floor with objects.
    2. Neighbour A had no floor coverings in their property to minimise the transference of this noise.
    3. Neighbour A was using other residents of the block, including neighbour B, to ‘intercept’ and harass him when he left his flat.
    4. Neighbour A was “stalking” him and had ‘tapped’ his phone.
  5. Between 15 November 2023 and 24 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord several times chasing it to turn on his heating.
  6. On 14 December 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. We asked it to log and respond to a complaint about its handling of his reports of ASB and turning on the heating in the property.
  7. On 18 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to complain that neighbour B was trying to intimidate him and was following him. He said that neighbour A was using ‘covert equipment’ to monitor his activities. The landlord logged this as a stage 1 complaint (complaint A).
  8. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to complaint A on 22 December 2023. It proposed to visit the resident on 22 January 2024 to discuss his ASB reports. This visit was later rescheduled to 29 January 2024.
  9. On 25 January 2024, the landlord logged a separate complaint (complaint B) in response to the Ombudsman’s request. It provided its stage 1 response to complaint B to the resident on 31 January 2024. It said that:
    1. It had already addressed the complaint about its handling of his ASB reports in its response to complaint A.
    2. The issue with his heating had been resolved on 24 November 2023.
    3. It had missed an earlier appointment to connect his property to the communal boiler but had offered compensation for this previously.
  10. On 31 January 2024, the resident asked to escalate complaint A to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. He said that neighbour A was continuing to cause noise nuisance and the landlord’s visit had achieved nothing.
  11. The landlord provided its stage 2 response to complaint A on 19 February 2024. It said that:
    1. It had visited the resident, neighbour A and neighbour B on 29 January 2024.
    2. It had found no evidence to support the resident’s reports of ASB.
    3. It would need to log a new ASB case to investigate any further concerns and would need to create an action plan with the resident, including him diarising any incidents that occurred.
  12. The landlord provided a stage 2 response to complaint B on 6 March 2024. It is unclear when, and on what basis, it escalated the complaint. The stage 2 response reiterated and upheld its findings at stage 1.
  13. On 27 March 2024, the resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not acted upon his reports of ASB.

Assessment and findings

ASB

  1. The landlord has provided records of the resident’s reports of ASB against neighbour A dating back to December 2021. The resident referred a previous complaint, which concerned the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports against neighbour A up until November 2022, to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman determined this complaint on 24 July 2023. 
  2. At the time of this complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy said it would not accept complaints when “the issue giving rise to complaint occurred over 6 months ago”. This was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) at that time. As the landlord logged the resident’s complaint on 18 December 2023, this investigation will examine events from June 2023 onwards only.
  3. It is important to clarify that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether ASB was actually perpetrated or by whom, nor to tackle the ASB itself. The Ombudsman seeks to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s reports of ASB and in keeping with its policy.
  4. On 1 June 2023, the resident sent the landlord a letter titled ‘complaint against [neighbour A]’. This alleged that neighbour A was using “unlawful surveillance equipment” to monitor and harass him and was having other residents ‘target’ him when he left his flat. The resident also claimed neighbour A had no floor coverings in their flat which was exacerbating the noise nuisance they were causing him. The resident listed incidents of noise nuisance from 18 April 2023 to 31 May 2023.
  5. The landlord’s ASB policy says that “all reports will be treated confidentially, logged as an ASB case and formally acknowledged”. It says when logging the case, it will undertake a risk assessment and draw up an appropriate action plan. The landlord has provided no evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s letter or opened an ASB case in response to his reports.
  6. The resident sent the landlord further letters on 10 July, 8 August and 2 October and 13 November 2023. These contained largely the same content as the letter of 1 June 2023, but each provided updated logs of incidents. As with the letter of 1 June 2023, the landlord has provided no evidence that it acknowledged or responded to these letters.
  7. On 18 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and made further reports that neighbours A and B were intimidating and monitoring him. The landlord logged a complaint based upon this. It is unclear why it decided to do this, rather than open an ASB case, when the resident had not expressed any dissatisfaction with the landlord, only reported the ASB.
  8. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it would visit the resident to discuss his ASB reports with him. The landlord kept this commitment and met with the resident on 29 January 2024. On the same day it spoke with neighbour A and attempted to speak with neighbour B, who was not home. This was in keeping with its ASB policy which lists “visits by the investigating officer” and “speaking to the parties involved” amongst its investigation methods. It would, however, have been appropriate for the landlord to make further efforts to contact neighbour B – which it has not provided evidence it attempted to do.
  9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 February 2024 detailing the outcome of its visits. It said that it had been unable to find evidence to support the resident’s reports and confirmed that neighbour A did have carpet throughout their property. The landlord said that, if further incidents occurred, it could open an ASB case and agree some actions for the resident to provide evidence and it to investigate further.
  10. The resident responded to this the same day, alleging that the noise nuisance was still ongoing. However, the landlord failed to open an ASB case as it had previously suggested. It did not open an ASB case until 8 March 2024, after the complaints process subject to this investigation had been completed. This was prompted by the resident making further reports including alleging that he had received abusive letters from neighbour A.
  11. In summary, the landlord failed to acknowledge or log the resident’s reports of ASB between June and November 2023, despite him providing extensive logs of incidents. Whilst the landlord did carry out an initial investigation into the resident’s reports, as agreed in its stage 1 complaint response this was still not appropriately recorded as an ASB case with the corresponding risk assessments and action plans completed. Due to this, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Reconnecting heating system

  1. In correspondence with the landlord, the resident has referred to the fact that it usually attends on an annual basis to reconnect his property to the communal boiler for winter. This appears to be an accepted procedure between the two parties. The reasons for this practice are unclear and an order is made in relation to this below
  2. On 8 November 2023, the resident first emailed the landlord and asked it to attend and reconnect his heating. The landlord’s repairs policy says that “gas heating and hot water failures will be attended within 4 hours between 31 October and 31 March, or else completed with 24hrs”. Whilst the resident’s heating had not ‘failed’, and merely required reconnecting, the impact was equivalent, and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond within this timeframe.
  3. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident making his request by email would likely have impeded the landlord’s ability to receive and action it within such a short period. However, when it responded to his email, on 10 November 2023, the landlord informed the resident its repairs contractor would attend on 13 November 2023. This was the next working day, but represented a further 3 days the resident was left without heating.
  4. The landlord informed the resident its contactor would attend between 1pm and 6pm on 13 December 2023. The contractor failed to keep to this appointment and attended earlier at 8am without notifying the resident in advance. This meant the resident was not available to give it access. In its stage 1 response to complaint B, the landlord referred to a “missed appointment” where “compensation was offered”. Whilst no specific date of this missed appointment was given, it is the Ombudsman’s view this was most likely the appointment of 13 November 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will “compensate customers for missed appointments”. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this compensation offer within the landlord’s records. An order is made regarding this below.
  5. The landlord’s repairs contractor returned to the property on 15 November 2023. On this occasion the resident refused it access. The contractor recorded that this was because the resident felt the job required a plumber, rather than the electrician it had sent. It recommended the landlord raise a job to its gas contractor. The landlord’s repairs policy says that “repairs to gas heating and hot water will be carried by Gas Safe Engineers and will be carried out in line with our Gas Safety Policy.” It is unclear why the landlord logged the repair for an electrician in this instance, or whether the electrician would have been able to reconnect the heating had the resident allowed access.
  6. On 16 November 2023, the landlord raised an order to its gas contractor stating that the resident had no heating. It identified him as being vulnerable. The gas contractor attended the property on 17 November 2023. It was unable to gain access or contact the resident whilst on site. The landlord has provided no evidence that it, or its gas contractor, contacted the resident in advance to notify him it would be attending.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 November 2023. He requested compensation for the period he had been left without heating. The landlord has provided no evidence that it responded to this request, or considered it as part of its response to complaint B.
  8. On 22 November 2023, the landlord informed the resident it had rebooked for its repairs contractor to attend on 4 December 2023 to reconnect his heating. This indicated a confused approach from the landlord, which had already referred the repair to its gas contractor on its repairs contractor’s recommendation.
  9. The landlord’s repairs contractor attended the property on 4 December 2024 as scheduled. However, it found that the gas contractor had already visited and reconnected the heating on 24 November 2023. This was therefore an unnecessary appointment and misuse of both the landlord’s resources and the resident’s time.
  10. In summary, the landlord took over 2 weeks to reconnect the vulnerable resident’s heating after his initial request, despite its policy requiring it to do so within 4 hours. Whilst the landlord stated it had offered compensation for a missed appointment, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this. Nor did it appropriately consider compensation for the period the resident was left with no heating due to its delays. Considering this, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident’s letters of 1 June, 10 July, 8 August and 2 October 2023 and 13 November 2023 (referred to in the ASB section above) were all titled as “complaint against [neighbour A]”. It is the Ombudsman’s view that these represented ASB reports, rather than a complaint about the landlord’s services. As the landlord’s failure to respond to these letters has been considered under the ASB complaint heading, they will not be included here to avoid ‘double counting’.
  2. It is therefore reasonable to say that the Ombudsman’s request of 14 December 2023 was the first time the landlord was asked to log a complaint for the resident.
  3. Separately, the landlord logged complaint A on 18 December 2023, following direct contact from the resident. It provided its stage 1 response to complaint A on 22 December 2023. This was within the 10 working days its complaints policy allows. The resident requested to escalate complaint A on 31 January 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 February 2023, also within the 20 working days its policy allows.
  4. However, both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses to complaint A were written by the same member of landlord staff. The Code says that “the person considering the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1.” This is to ensure that stage 2 is an impartial review of the complaint. By using the same complaint handler at both stages, the landlord denied the resident this opportunity.
  5. The landlord failed to raise complaint B, which had been requested by the Ombudsman, until 25 January 2024. This was over a month after the Ombudsman had written to it on 14 December 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided within 10 working days on 31 January 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response to complaint B on 6 March 2024. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident requested to escalate complaint B, so the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord’s response was within its policy’s timescales.
  6. As with complaint A, the same member of landlord staff provided the responses to complaint B at both stage 1 and 2. This indicates that this was not merely an oversight during the handling of complaint A, but a concerning systemic practice. An order is made in relation to this below.
  7. In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably in logging complaint B, following the Ombudsman’s request. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were provided by the same staff member in both complaints A and B. This denied the resident an impartial review of his complaint at stage 2 of each process. Due to this, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reconnecting the heating system in the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £495 composed of:
      1. £150 for the maladministration in its handling of his reports of ASB
      2. £200 for the maladministration in its handling of reconnecting his heating system
      3. £20 for its repairs contractor’s missed appointment of 13 November 2022. Any sum already paid by the landlord for this missed appointment may be deducted from this amount.
      4. £125 for the maladministration in its complaint handling.
    2. Apologise to the resident for its maladministration identified by this investigation.
    3. Review its complaint handling procedures to ensure that stage 2 complaints are handled by a different staff member to that which responded at stage 1.
    4. Review its arrangements for connecting/disconnecting the resident’s heating from the communal boiler to determine whether this is necessary. If so, it should take steps to ensure it responds to requests to reconnect the resident’s heating in keeping with the timescales for heating ‘failure’ in its repairs policy.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.