Wandle Housing Association Limited (202405860)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405860

Wandle Housing Association Limited

27 February 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:
1. oversight of communal repairs.
2. response to the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning.
3. scrutiny of the managing agent’s accounts.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the property. He has lived there since September 2018. The property is a flat situated within an 8 storey building comprising commercial and residential premises. A private freeholder owns the building.
The resident’s shared ownership of the property is held through an underlease with the landlord. The landlord in turn holds the property and several other flats in the building as a leaseholder of a head lease. The private freeholder is the landlord of the head lease.
The private freeholder is responsible under the head lease for cleaning, maintaining and repairing the communal parts of the building. It has appointed a managing agent to provide these services on its behalf.
The resident pays a monthly rent and service charge to the landlord. The service charge includes a proportioned share of the managing agent’s costs for providing services.
On 20 March 2024 the resident asked the landlord to open a stage 1 complaint. Within his email he referred to a “previous case” concerning a lack of hot water. He said:
1. he wanted to open a “new case” regarding the lift in the building being out of service for a number of days. He said the issue with the lift had gone on for “far too long” and that residents in the building were “rightly furious”.
2. the building was “filthy” and had not been “cleaned properly in weeks”.
3. that it was a “disgrace” the landlord was increasing rent from April 2024 onwards given its “continuing lack of service and empathy”.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 April 2024. It explained that the managing agent was responsible for the day to day repair and management of the building. In response to the resident’s concerns, it said:
1. due to “long-standing issues” with the performance of the lift, the managing agent had recently changed the contractor maintaining it. The new contractor was the manufacturer of the lift.
2. there was a recent incident where the lift was out of service for several days. It took the managing agent and its contractor “longer than anticipated” to resolve it but it was now back in service.
3. it apologised for the ongoing incidents with the lift and disruption this had caused. It shared the resident’s concerns about the lift’s “poor performance”. It would continue to “have discussions” with the managing agent regarding this until it found a long term solution. It would keep all residents informed of the progress.
4. it had raised the resident’s concerns about cleanliness with the managing agent. It told the landlord that a cleaner serviced the building 5 days a week.
5. the agent advised the landlord that it was considering increasing the cleaning hours. The landlord said it would keep residents informed of any changes.
6. residents should send it photographs of any specific cleaning concerns and it would pass these on to the managing agent.
7. rent increases were determined by the rent review clause of the resident’s lease.
8. it was sorry the resident believed it lacked service and empathy. It was committed to ensuring residents received the services specified in their lease agreements. It had a good relationship with the managing agent and would continue to escalate residents’ concerns to the agent’s senior management team to ensure they were resolved.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 9 April 2024. He said:
1. the issue with the lift had been ongoing for the last 5 years. It stopped working on average once a month for a week at a time.
2. the managing agent was not cleaning the building to an adequate standard. If the landlord had visited the building it “would see that it’s a pigsty”.
3. its response to his concerns about the rental increase was “quite patronising”. It had not adhered to its handbook which said it would scrutinise the freeholder and managing agent’s accounts and take robust action where it had cause for concern.
4. there were other issues “with leaks/damp inside the building” that the landlord had not helped to resolve. It had “failed in its duty of care”.
5. the landlord had not taken any responsibility through its complaints process, which had served only to “draw out the process for as long as possible” and “put off residents from taking action”.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 April 2024. It reiterated that it did not own the freehold of the building. It said:
1. it held regular meetings with the managing agent and felt it did act on residents’ behalf. For example, it helped coordinate access arrangements between the agent and residents. It also escalated issues to senior managers of the managing agent where they had not been actioned by property managers on site.
2. it had discussed the ongoing lift issue with the managing agent. Although a new lift contractor had been appointed, this had not fully resolved the issues. The landlord had investigated with the managing agent the option of upgrading or replacing the lift, but it ruled this out due to costs.
3. the managing agent said it would continue to monitor the lift situation and would ensure that it resolved any further breakdowns as quickly as possible.
4. it had raised the issue of cleaning with the managing agent, who in turn said it would raise this with the cleaning contractor. The managing agent felt the cleaning had improved over the last few months.
5. it had not always been able to scrutinise accounts as thoroughly as it hoped due to the need to get invoices paid and a “lack of response” from the managing agent. It intended to provide copies of accounts to residents on an annual basis to give them the opportunity to scrutinise the proposed costs.
6. it was working with NHBC and the managing agent to identify the cause of leaks in the building and hoped to update residents soon.
7. the NHBC warranty would not cover any leaks from within properties. Residents were responsible for resolving these. They should report any damage caused to the managing agent’s building insurer.
8. it had acted in a reasonable manner and where possible, it had held the managing agent to account for any failings.
The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint and referred it to the Ombudsman. He told us his “main complaint” was that he did not have any hot water for a week and he was disappointed by the landlord’s handling of this. He said he was also unhappy with how it had handled other issues, including the faulty lift and cleaning of the building. The outcomes he sought were to be compensated for services he had “paid for and not received”, and for the standard of services in the building to be improved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The freeholder, rather than the landlord, is responsible under the head lease for maintaining, cleaning and repairing the communal areas and parts of the building. The freeholder has appointed a managing agent to discharge this responsibility on its behalf. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate the freeholder or managing agent’s response to the resident’s concerns about repairs and cleaning as neither party are members of our Scheme. The managing agent does however have its own internal complaints process and is overseen by the Property Ombudsman Service. We understand the resident is already aware of this.
We are unable to hold the landlord responsible for the action, or inaction, of the managing agent. While it has a contractual relationship with the freeholder through the head lease, it has no contractual relationship with the managing agent. This means that it is unable to directly manage the agent’s performance. If it had issues with the managing agent that it was unable to resolve, its ultimate recourse would be to take these up with the freeholder. It could consider whether the freeholder was fulfilling its obligations, known as covenants, under the head lease. Similarly, any residents affected could consider whether the landlord was fulfilling its covenant in the underlease to enforce the covenants of the freeholder in the head lease. However, the Ombudsman is unable to determine disputes concerning the interpretation and enforcement of covenants or other clauses of a lease, as such matters are for the courts. Therefore, if either party wished to consider this further, they should seek independent legal advice.
The Ombudsman can investigate the support offered by the landlord to assist the resident to address his concerns with the managing agent. This complaint investigation therefore focusses on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the managing agent, and the action it took to address these with the agent.
Part of the resident’s initial complaint was that the landlord was increasing the rent. When escalating his complaint, he raised concerns about the landlord’s scrutiny of the managing agent’s accounts. He told the Ombudsman that one of the outcomes he sought was compensation for services “paid for and not received”.
The Ombudsman is unable to investigate complaints concerning rent increases or liability to pay service charges. Such matters fall within the remit of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). We can however consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its scrutiny of the managing agent’s accounts.

Oversight of communal repairs

Where landlords take on properties that are owned and managed by third parties, they are reliant on those parties to discharge their statutory and contractual obligations. This can be challenging for landlords but it is important that they do not lose sight of the landlord and resident relationship. This was highlighted by the Ombudsman in our March 2022 spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents. Our key findings in the report included the following:
1. Signposting residents to contact or chase managing agents or freeholders directly to resolve complaints is inappropriate. Residents’ contractual relationship is with their landlord. The Ombudsman expects landlords to own the relationship with their residents and to be proactive in pursuing resolution on their behalf.
2. Landlords should take ownership for getting clear updates and action from managing agents or freeholders. This benefits both the landlord as a leaseholder as well as their residents.
3. Where landlords are able to build strong working relationships with managing agents then they may be able to develop a more efficient approach to roles and responsibilities, areas of crossover and shared responsibility in the longer term.
In his complaint correspondence, the resident raised concerns about repairs to equipment in the communal area. He said:
1. the lift in the building had been out of service for several days. This had been an ongoing issue for the last 5 years. It stopped working on average once a month for a week at a time.
2. there were other issues “with leaks/damp inside the building” that the landlord had not helped to resolve. It had “failed in its duty of care”.
The landlord’s complaints policy, in line with the Code, sets out that it will usually only accept complaints about issues that arose within the past 12 months. We have therefore limited our investigation into how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of communal repair issues to the 12 months prior to the complaint being made. This means we considered its response to reports from 20 March 2023, which was a year prior to the resident making his complaint, up until it issued its stage 2 response on 26 April 2024.
During this time the resident reported to the landlord that the lift was not working and there were issues with the plumbing in the building, leading to leaks and his hot water not working. As will be outlined below, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proactive and reasonable steps to pursue these reports. We have seen no evidence that the resident made any reports regarding damp during this time period.
On 5 April 2023 the landlord sent an update letter to its residents in relation to various communal repair issues in the building. The lift was not working at that time. The landlord said in the letter that it had asked the managing agent to provide it with chronological details of any repairs it had carried out to date. It said it would review this information and would ask NHBC, who provided the building warranty, to also review it. It wrote to its residents again on 19 April 2023 and said the lift was now working but it was liaising with the managing agent to find a longer term solution to the ongoing issues.
By the following year when the resident submitted his complaint, the lift had still not been permanently repaired and was continuing to break down. While we understand this was frustrating for the resident, it is not a failure to repair for which we can reasonably hold the landlord accountable. We are satisfied that it was continuing to pursue the issue with the managing agent and press it to find solutions. It demonstrated this through its complaint responses in which it explained that:
1. the managing agent had attempted in recent months to resolve the ongoing repair issues by appointing the manufacturer of the lift as its new repairs contractor. However, the repair issues remained ongoing and as a result the managing agent was considering changing contractor again.
2. it had investigated with the managing agent the option of upgrading or replacing the lift. This was not viable however due to the costs involved.
3. it would continue to have discussions with the managing agent until a long-term solution was found to the issues with the lift. It would keep all residents in the building informed of the progress.
Within the 5 April 2023 update letter to residents, the landlord said it had instructed NHBC to review issues with leaks throughout the building and repairs to the communal plumbing system. It is evident that the resident was directly affected by these ongoing repair issues with the plumbing system. On at least 3 occasions during the time period under investigation, he reported to the managing agent and landlord that his hot water was not working. We are satisfied that each time the landlord passed his reports on to the managing agent and asked it to take action.
When referring his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident outlined that his “main complaint” concerned a specific incident in which he was without hot water for a week. It began on 6 February 2024 when he reported to the managing agent that the Heat Interface Unit (HIU) system within his flat was leaking and he was without hot water. The managing agent sent a contractor to stem the leak and inspect the system the following day. However, the hot water was not restored until a second visit by the contractor on 12 February 2024. The contractor told the resident that he would need to return at a later date to fully complete the repair as a valve in the HIU required replacement.
The resident contacted the managing agent on 28 February 2024 and reported that his hot water had stopped working again. The managing agent confirmed the following day that it had ordered the parts required for the full repair to be completed. We do not know from the evidence what date the contractor returned, but we understand the valve has since been replaced.
Throughout February 2024 the resident copied the landlord into his emails to the managing agent. He also contacted the landlord directly on a number of occasions to raise concerns:
1. about the managing agents delays in responding to his initial report, in restoring the hot water, and in carrying out the full repair to his HIU.
2. that the faults with his HIU were as a “direct result of [the managing agent] failing to clean the communal boiler resulting in debris which has caused an explosion inside my boiler.” He said this was supported by the contractor’s findings and also by the fact other residents in the building experienced the same issue with their HIUs. He said there was also a leak in the communal corridor.
3. that the landlord needed “to get a hold of this situation”. He suggested that residents should be claiming back the cost of maintenance from their service charge as result of the landlord’s “failure to deal with [the managing agent]”.
The landlord passed the resident’s concerns regarding the delays in restoring his hot water and cleaning the communal boiler on to the managing agent. The landlord asked for updates about when the hot water would be restored, assisted with coordinating an appointment for a contractor to attend, and relayed information back to the resident. When the resident reported the hot water had stopped working again on 28 February 2024, the landlord escalated the matter to the Head of Operations for the managing agent. This demonstrated that the landlord was appropriately advocating on the resident’s behalf as recommended in our spotlight report.
The landlord provided the resident with details of the managing agent’s insurance policy on 16 February 2024. The insurance policy included buildings insurance as well as property owner’s liability insurance. The landlord suggested to the resident that he put the insurer on notice if he was going to submit a claim for the boiler repair. This was an appropriate suggestion by the landlord. It reiterated its advice regarding making an insurance claim in its stage 2 complaint response.
Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its oversight of communal repairs. Based on the evidence we have seen, on each occasion the resident reported specific incidents of lift breakdowns or plumbing issues to the landlord, it raised these promptly with the managing agent. It provided the resident with updates on when a repair would be carried out and provided him with appropriate advice on making an insurance claim. It liaised with the managing agent to find long term solutions to the ongoing issues involving the lift, leaks and the plumbing system, and it provided updates to residents. We recognise that a long term solution to the various issues had not been found by the date of the stage 2 response and that this caused the resident significant frustration. However, the evidence does not support that this was due to a failure by the landlord to proactively pursue a resolution with the managing agent.
We would encourage the landlord to maintain an open dialogue with residents about the communal repair issues in the building. If it has not done so recently, we recommend that it provides its residents with an update on whether the repair issues with the lift, leaks and plumbing in the building have been fully resolved. If they have not been, it should explain how it is pursuing this with the managing agent.
If it has not already done so, we recommend that the landlord carries out a self-assessment against the recommendations made in our spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents.

Response to concerns about communal cleaning

The resident said in his initial complaint that the building was “filthy” and had not been cleaned properly “in weeks”. In his escalation request he complained that cleaning had not been carried out to an adequate standard. He said that if the landlord “had bothered to visit” the block, it would see it was “a pigsty”.
During both complaint investigations the landlord appropriately brought the resident’s concerns to the managing agent’s attention. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that the managing agent had said:
1. a cleaner was on site 5 days a week but was considering increasing its hours.
2. it would raise the concerns with its cleaning contractor.
3. it felt the cleaning had improved over the last few months.
While it was appropriate that the landlord brought the resident’s concerns to the attention of the managing agent, its investigation was limited for the following reasons:
1. it accepted the managing agent’s initial response that it would consider increasing the cleaning hours without asking how it ensured the standard of cleaning was satisfactory. If this was an issue, an increase in hours was not necessarily the solution.
2. it did not indicate in its complaint responses whether it had inspected the building to determine for itself whether the standard of cleaning was satisfactory. This was despite the resident complaining that it had not visited the building when escalating his complaint.
3. it did not ask the resident to provide specific information about his concerns. It was unclear from his complaint correspondence which areas of the building he felt were dirty. For example, it could have been the windows, stairwells, bins, or all of these areas. The landlord could reasonably have asked him for clarification so that, in line with its complaints policy, it had a full understanding of why the resident had made the complaint.
4. the resident said in his escalation request that he had photographic evidence of the standard of cleaning. The landlord did not follow this up and ask him for copies of the photographs during it stage 2 investigation. This was despite it stating in its stage 1 response that if residents provided photographs it would address them with the managing agent.
The landlord said in its complaint responses it would keep residents informed if the managing agent made any changes to the cleaning arrangements. It duly provided an update during a resident and landlord meeting held on 1 May 2024. This was less than a week after it issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said during the meeting:
1. it had “held regular meetings” with the managing agent and passed on residents’ concerns regarding cleaning.
2. it (the landlord) had carried out site visits to the building and felt that it was generally “clean and well maintained” at the time of its visits.
3. it would continue to undertake regular visits and would invite residents to the next inspection.
Given the proximity in time between the stage 2 response and the meeting, the landlord was in a position to state in the response that it had inspected, or shortly intended to inspect, the building. It could reasonably have provided its view of the cleanliness as it did at the meeting, rather than just relaying the managing agent’s view. It could reasonably have offered the resident the opportunity to attend the inspection in order that he could point out any concerns. This was an offer it later made to all residents during the meeting. That it failed to make this offer to the resident during its complaint investigation was a missed opportunity to provide redress.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning. We are satisfied that it took reasonable steps to meet with the managing agent, bring concerns about cleaning to its attention and inspect the building for itself. However, it failed to fully articulate this action to the resident in its complaint responses. It also failed to ask him for more information and copies of photographs in order that it could better understand his specific concerns and thoroughly investigate these. This led to him feeling it had not taken his complaint seriously. When referring his complaint to the Ombudsman, he said that the landlord “at no point spoke to [him] to hear [his] worries about the building”.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure.
We recommend that it provides its residents with an update on the cleaning arrangements for the building and outlines its view on how well these are operating.

Scrutiny of the managing agent’s accounts

In his escalation request the resident complained that the landlord was not robustly scrutinising the managing agent’s accounts. This was not raised in his original complaint. However, it was closely linked to his original complaint about the payment of rent. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord addressed it in its stage 2 response.
The Ombudsman has been provided with no evidence of financial detriment caused to the resident due to the landlord’s scrutiny of the accounts. However, if he believes it has resulted in demands for unreasonably accrued or inaccurately calculated service charges, he may challenge this through the First Tier Tribunal as explained above.
The only evidence we have received that suggests the landlord was not robustly scrutinising the accounts, was its admission in its stage 2 response. It said it had “not been able to scrutinise the accounts as thoroughly as [it] had always hoped”. It explained that this was due to a need to get invoices paid and a “lack of response” from the managing agent. It proposed that moving forward, it would provide copies of the accounts on an annual basis to residents to give them “the chance to scrutinise the proposed costs”.
We are satisfied that this was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns. The response indicated that the landlord intended to be proactive with residents when providing information about accounts. It followed through on this commitment. The week after the stage 2 response was issued, on 1 May 2024, it held a meeting with residents of the building. The first agenda item was the 2024-25 budget and service charges. Residents raised concern during the meeting that the landlord was “not giving the accounts due diligence” and was “signing off the accounts with no scrutiny”. The landlord explained that it employed a specialist officer who processed and scrutinised the invoices received from the managing agent. However, given the feedback, it agreed to consider “how best to give the accounts more attention”. It also said it was “happy to go through the budget individually with residents”.
That the landlord proactively discussed the accounts with residents during the meeting and sought their feedback, demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. We do not know if the resident was at the meeting. However, we note that the landlord shared an audio recording of the meeting with him on 9 May 2024.
We are satisfied that the landlord complied with its procedural obligations to send the resident written rent and service charges statements. In February 2023 and February 2024, it sent him a letter setting out the proposed rent and service charge costs for the upcoming financial year. It sent statements containing the actual service charge costs in September each year. All 4 letters attached a summary of the resident’s rights and obligations in relation to service charges. This included information on the role of the First Tier Tribunal. It also included an explanation of the resident’s rights to:
1. request a written summary of costs which make up the service charge.
2. inspect the accounts, receipts and other documents.
3. ask an accountant or surveyor to carry out an audit of the financial management of the building.
If the resident continues to have concerns regarding the financial management of the building, those options remain open to him.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord offered redress to the resident’s complaint about its scrutiny of the managing agent’s accounts prior to our investigation. In our opinion this resolved the complaint satisfactorily. The landlord provided him with timely and accurate information about the First Tier Tribunal and his rights to request information and inspect the accounts. It acknowledged in its complaint response that its scrutiny was not always as thorough as it hoped. It committed going forward to provide more information to residents about the accounts. It followed through on this commitment and discussed the accounts with residents during a public meeting, ensuring that the resident received a recording of the meeting. This was a reasonable and proportionate response to the resident’s complaint. It demonstrated that the landlord had taken his concerns seriously.
We recommend that the landlord provides residents in the building with a written update on any steps it has taken to improve its scrutiny of the managing agent’s accounts. This is further to the commitment it made to do so at the residents’ meeting on 1 May 2024.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its oversight of communal repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in response to his complaint about its scrutiny of the managing agent’s accounts, prior to our investigation. In our opinion this resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the service failure identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident £100 compensation for the service failure in its response to the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, we recommend that the landlord carries out a self-assessment against the recommendations made in our spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents.
We recommend that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide its residents in the building with a written update on:
1. whether the repair issues with the lift, leaks and plumbing in the building have been fully resolved. If they have not been, it should explain how it is pursuing this with the managing agent.
2. the cleaning arrangements for the building and its view on how well these are operating.
3. any steps it has taken to improve its scrutiny of the managing agent’s accounts. This is further to the commitment it made to do so at the residents’ meeting on 1 May 2024.