Wandle Housing Association Limited (202329262)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329262

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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks at the property.
2. The associated complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
The resident complained to the landlord on 11 August 2023. He had reported a leak from the balcony of the property above on 29 July 2023. However, he said it had failed to inspect or respond to these reports and instead had cancelled the jobs raised. He was unhappy with its handling of the ongoing leak and that it had not kept him informed.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 24 August 2023. It acknowledged that it had “got things wrong” and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It identified 3 appointments which it had raised and cancelled. It offered him a total of £30 compensation – £10 for each failed appointment. It said it had raised a new job for the leak and its contractors would contact him to book the appointment.
On 21 September 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to the landlord. He said it had not arranged an appointment as it said it would within its initial complaint response. He said it had not yet inspected the leak, which remained ongoing and had worsened.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 24 October 2023. It said it had raised an appointment for the leak on 29 September 2023, which it had booked for 13 November 2023. It apologised for not notifying him of the appointment details as it had previously promised. It explained this was due to raising this as a communal repair, rather than his property specifically. It said it would learn from this to improve services in the future.
The resident escalated his complaint to this Service. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s response as it had not yet inspected the leak which remained ongoing. He also felt the date of the appointment did not reflect the urgency of the issue. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 21 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that he had experienced recurring leaks for the last 4 years. The resident’s comments are not disputed, and the serious nature of this matter is acknowledged. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, while the issues are live. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. The focus of this investigation will therefore relate to the leaks which the resident complained about, which he first reported in July 2023.
The resident is currently experiencing issues which occurred after the complaints process ended. This includes issues with the outcome of the landlord’s inspection and outstanding repairs, which the landlord is completing to the wider block.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks at the property

The resident is a leaseholder of the property. When investigating the complaint, we asked the landlord to provide a copy of the resident’s lease agreement. However, it said it did not have a copy of this. It has instead provided a copy of the head lease. This is the lease between the landlord and the property developer.
The landlord should maintain accurate records, and it is of significant concern that it has not a copy of the lease relating to the resident’s property. The lease sets out the agreements between the resident and the landlord, as well as the rights and responsibilities of each party. The absence of this key information has impacted our ability to assess whether the landlord met its obligations in line with the resident’s lease agreement. This is therefore a significant record keeping failure.
The head lease provided by the landlord outlines that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the main structure of the building. This includes all walls, windows and doors externally, and the common parts. Additionally, its repairs and maintenance policy states that it is responsible for maintaining the structure and common parts for leasehold properties.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs such as uncontainable leaks within 24 hours. It states that it will respond to urgent repairs within 7 days. Additionally, its policy states that it would keep residents informed throughout the repairs process, but the evidence fails to show that it did so.
On 29 July 2023, the resident reported leaks into his property. He said that when it rained, water appeared through the ceiling of both his kitchen and bedroom. He said this damaged the plasterwork and internal decorations. He noted that the water appeared to come from the balcony of the property above. It is unclear whether the landlord classified the leak as an emergency or urgent repair. Regardless, it is evident that following the report of leaks, the landlord failed to act within a timely manner to either arrange an inspection or carry out repairs.
Due to the lack of response, the resident reported the leaks again on 2 August 2023 and 3 August 2023. He added that the leak from the bedroom ceiling had worsened. This would have understandably caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he would have believed that the landlord did not take his repair concerns seriously.
On 3 August 2023, the landlord updated the resident that it had raised an urgent inspection and repair to the leak. It is unclear why the landlord did not do so when the matter was first reported on 29 July 2023. Nevertheless, in line with the landlord’s policy, it should have inspected the property within 7 days of raising the repair on 3 August 2023. However, it failed to do so. The resident made further contact on 4 August 2023 to report the leak had worsened. Within this, he also raised concerns that the leaks occurred next to the electrical wiring.
Given the added concern of electrical safety, the landlord raised an emergency repair to attend the property on the same day. This was appropriate. It raised this through its ‘out of hours’ service. However, the records showed that its contractors could not complete any works as it had not passed along the details of which flat reported the leak, and that it did not have the resident’s contact details. It therefore did not attend within its emergency repair timeframe.
The landlord should have reasonably relayed the correct information to its contractors without error. It is unclear why it did not. However that it was unable to do so was a failing given that the need for an emergency attendance had been identified. It is unclear whether the landlord later checked the electrics which is a significant failing. The resident was already distressed by the leaks and this was heightened as a result of his concerns about the electrics. By failing to attend the property as it should have done, the landlord left the resident with the impression that his concerns had not been taken seriously. His frustration at the situation as a whole was also made worse.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 August 2023. He said that it had not attended as promised on 4 August 2023, and the leak had worsened over the weekend. He said that it had told him over the phone that it had cancelled 3 different repair jobs. It was unclear why it had done so given that the leak remained unresolved.
On 8 August 2023, the landlord said it had raised a new job on the previous day to inspect the leaks. It said its contractor would contact the resident to arrange the appointment. Between 8 August 2023 and 22 August 2023, the resident asked for updates on 5 occasions regarding the outstanding leak and when the landlord would likely be able to repair this. There is no evidence provided to show that the landlord responded. This is a failing.
On 22 August 2023, the landlord told the resident that it would attend his property on or before 4 September 2023. From the landlord’s records, it is unclear whether this was to inspect the issues or to complete repairs. The resident was understandably unhappy as the leak had been reported nearly a month prior. The planned date would cause even further delays. He asked the landlord to inspect the property sooner than this date, but it told him that it had an issue with its “supply chain”. It is unclear what this referred to, and this also caused confusion with the resident himself asking what it meant.
We acknowledge that sometimes staffing issues or the availability of materials can impact the landlord’s ability to provide a service. However, it has responsibilities and obligations under the terms of the lease. It should therefore ensure it has contingency plans in place to enable it to inspect and complete repairs appropriately. Overall, the planned appointment date given was inappropriate as the landlord had already delayed in responding to the leak. Given the departure from the policy timescales, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered expediting the repair. This is especially so given that the resident’s concerns about the leak affecting the electrics had yet to be resolved.
After the landlord told the resident on 22 August 2023 about the planned repair date, he chased a further 7 times until it later updated him on 28 September 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by not attending as planned by 4 September 2023. It said it had raised a new repair job to “investigate and remedy” the repair. It is unclear why the landlord raised a new repair, given it had previously raised multiple repairs for this issue. It did not provide an expected date of when it would complete this repair. It should reasonably have done so. The lack of clarity would have understandably caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
On 5 October 2023, the resident reported that the existing leak had worsened, a new leak had started in the living room, and there was black mould on the bedroom ceiling. The landlord attended as an emergency repair on the same day, in line with its policy. This was the landlord’s first attendance to the leaks, which the resident had first reported over 2 months ago. Alongside inspecting the property as an emergency repair on 5 October 2023, the landlord also raised a new job to inspect the property on 13 November 2023. It said this appointment would try to find a more permanent solution to the problem.
Given the resident’s report of mould, the landlord should not have added further delays with its next appointment. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould”. The report notes that it is imperative that it does not leave residents living with damp and mould for an extended period. If it does not deal with this at the earliest opportunity, this will increase the frustration and discomfort of the resident. It can also lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve. The landlord also did not consider whether it needed to complete any immediate action, such as a mould wash. As such, its response to the resident’s report of mould and the ongoing leaks was therefore a failing.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord provided the resident with an update of its findings or next steps following its inspection on 5 October 2023. Its repair records are not comprehensive as it does not show what it found during the inspection. This is another example of a record keeping failure.
On 22 October 2023, the resident said the leaks had “significantly” worsened because of further rainfall. He said he now had leaks in 4 areas of the property – 3 in the living and kitchen area, and 1 in the bedroom. He added that he had not received any updates following the inspection. The landlord’s failure to effectively communicate with the resident caused him further time and trouble with chasing the next steps. This is a failing.
In the landlord’s initial complaint response, it identified that it had cancelled 3 repair jobs without updating the resident. It offered him £30 for its failings, calculated at £10 per failing. It is unclear which appointments it referred to within this calculation. It would have been good practice for it to clarify which appointments it had failed to attend. This would have allowed it to reflect on its handling, providing openness and awareness of its failings. It would have also provided itself the opportunity to investigate why it failed so many appointments.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it said that it had raised a job on 29 September 2023 regarding the leaks. It said that it had booked the appointment for 13 November 2023. It also provided the job reference number. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide confirmation of this. However, from the evidence provided by the landlord, the information given to the resident was not correct. The records show the job was raised on 5 October 2023, not 29 September 2023. The landlord must ensure that it reflects on its own records to provide an accurate response to the resident. That it did not do so was a failing.
While the landlord completed its inspection as planned on 13 November 2023, it is unclear why it delayed taking this next step. This took a further 39 days to do after the first inspection, and it was 107 days since the first report of a leak. The records do not indicate whether the repair was classified as an emergency or urgent. However, in either event, the time taken by the landlord to respond far exceeded its policy timescales.
The landlord’s response to reports of water leaks was not appropriate. It unreasonably delayed in inspecting the resident’s reports for over 2 months, from the first report on 29 July 2023 to 5 October 2023. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns on multiple occasions. When it did respond, its communication was not clear. Its failure to raise the repairs in a timely manner, and to keep its appointments, meant he spent time and trouble chasing updates.
During this time, the resident remained understandably concerned with water entering his property, and uncertain as to whether his electrics were safe to use. He also understandably experienced significant distress and inconvenience identifying that the leak and associated repairs were worsening and that the landlord was failing to respond to his reports. The landlord appropriately acknowledged some failings when responding to the complaint and offered the resident £30 compensation for the inconvenience he was caused. However, it has failed to identify and acknowledge how poor its response to the resident’s reports was.
We have identified some significant failings on behalf of the landlord. Given the distress and inconvenience that has been caused to the resident as a result of these, we have found that there was severe maladministration. We have also made a series of orders aimed at putting things right.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord has not yet resolved the ongoing leaks. It is evident that after the inspection on 13 November 2023, the landlord used an external contractor to address a wider issue impacting the block which may be contributing to the leaks. While we have not assessed this within this investigation, we recommend that the landlord writes to the resident to provide him with an update regarding the steps it plans to take to resolve the leaks. We have also made an order regarding a damp and mould inspection to assess whether any interim measures are required.

The associated complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that the resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for a landlord to treat it as such.
Following the resident’s reports of a leak on 29 July 2023, he became increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress with the landlord inspecting and repairing the leak. This caused him to ask for information on how to make a complaint and for it to provide its formal complaints procedure. Between 7 August 2023 and 10 August 2023, he asked for this information on 3 occasions. There is no evidence to suggest that it provided this or responded to his requests. This is a failing.
On 11 August 2023, the resident called the landlord and made a formal complaint. If it had responded to his requests for information about the complaint’s procedure and process, it may have reduced the amount of time and trouble he spent in making his complaint. By not doing so, it would have understandably caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
Following the resident’s complaint on 11 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. It then provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 August 2023. This was within the 10 working day timescale set out in both the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. This was appropriate.
On 21 September 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to the landlord. In line with its policy, it should acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days. However, it did not do so. This caused the resident to spend further time and trouble by chasing his complaint escalation on 28 September 2023. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to this, yet it responded to other concerns within the same email. This would have understandably caused the resident to question whether it took his complaint seriously. This would have also caused him further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation on 5 October 2023. This was 10 working days after the resident’s escalation request. This was not appropriate and not in line with its policy or the Code. It later provided its final complaint response on 24 October 2023. Overall, this took 23 working days from the complaint escalation request, and 13 days from sending its acknowledgement. While this was only slightly over the 20 working days to respond to a complaint, it is evident that its lack of communication caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord did not acknowledge any complaint handling failures within its complaint responses. Given the impact of its lack of communication and its failure to follow its policy and the Code, it should pay the resident £150 compensation. This is an appropriate award to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. This should be from a member of its senior management team. It should include specific examples in reference to each complaint point.
2. Pay the resident a total of £800 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £650 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of leaks at the property. This replaces the landlord’s original offer of compensation.
  2. £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Provide training to its staff on the importance of adequate record keeping. Specifically, it should deliver the training to the staff responsible for recording lease agreements, to ensure it retains its legal records.
4. Complete an inspection of the property. It should then provide its findings of the inspections in writing to the resident. It should also include any repairs identified, as well as the appointment dates for any repairs, within this. As a minimum, the inspection should include:
  1. An inspection of the electrics at the property, to assess the safety of this. Specifically, this should include areas where the resident has concerns with the safety due to water within that area.
  2. A damp and mould inspection of the property. This is to assess whether any interim measures are required to help resolve the impact of the leak on the resident and his enjoyment of the property.
The landlord should provide compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider writing to the resident to provide him with an update regarding the steps it plans to take to resolve the leaks.