Wandle Housing Association Limited (202408624)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408624

Wandle Housing Association Limited

17 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 response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in her conservatory.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She has lived at the property since 2016 with her husband and children. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
On 26 May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that her conservatory was leaking when it rained. She said:
1. she had been reporting the issue for a year.
2. during this time the landlord and its contractors had carried out numerous inspections and confirmed the conservatory glass was poorly fitted. However, it had not resolved the issue or given her any updates on what it intended to do.
3. she was unable to use the conservatory as there was mould in it. She said it was “ruining everything” and that “everything is just damp”.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 June 2023. It said it had received quotes for works to repair the conservatory however it had not approved them due to “extreme costs”. It told the resident it would seek additional quotes and, once approved, would complete the works.
On 26 July 2023 the resident sought an update from the landlord. It told her it needed to follow up on a quote. She asked it to keep her updated.
On 2 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. She said the conservatory had leaked again that day causing her table, chairs and floor to get wet. She said belongings were “constantly getting ruined” and that the wet floor was “slippery and unsafe” for her and her children. She also raised concerns about mould in the room.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 9 August 2023. She said that “nothing had been done yet” and matters were “no further forward” since she initially complained.
On 4 September 2023 the landlord surveyed the conservatory. The survey was carried out by an in-house UPVC specialist who reported the conservatory was “unrepairable”, “leaking all over”, had “mould” and was “cracking and rotting”.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response later that same day. It acknowledged that the resident had made several reports and that it “did not get it right”. It explained:
1. it had previously arranged for a roofing company to inspect the conservatory, when it should have been a UPVC specialist.
2. following the UPVC specialist’s survey that day, it had spoken to the resident on the phone about next steps.
3. the work required was beyond the scope of a standard repair so it would be taken forward by its major repairs team. That team would appoint a surveyor and a major works contractor to carry out all necessary works.
On 10 November 2023 the resident rang the landlord and asked that someone call her back. She said it had attended her property 3 weeks previously and taken photos of the conservatory, but she had heard nothing since. She asked for an update. The landlord did not return her call.
On 27 November 2023 the resident submitted an online complaint form to the landlord. She outlined on the form that she was at the second stage of the complaints process. She said the landlord had not called her back or updated her on the conservatory works. She said she wanted to raise another complaint.
The landlord logged this request as a new complaint. It issued a stage 1 response on 15 December 2023. It said it had raised a works order with a contractor on 25 September 2023 but the contractor had not yet responded to this. It said it would follow this up. It advised the resident to contact the major repairs team if she did not hear from the contractor within the next 4 to 6 weeks.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 January 2024 to ask for an update on when the work would start to repair her conservatory. During this call she asked to escalate her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 14 February 2024. It said it had reviewed the case from the resident’s original complaint in May 2023 up to the present day. It said:
1. its repairs team and contractors had attended on “more than one occasion” to inspect the leaking conservatory, but it had not yet carried out any repairs to resolve the issue.
2. there had been delays in it communicating its actions to the resident.
3. having reviewed its findings to date, it felt the design of the conservatory required a contractor who specialised in the field. It had therefore instructed a different contactor than the one it had previously instructed in September 2023. The new contractor would contact the resident to arrange a survey of the conservatory “for repairs or replacement”.
4. it offered the resident £500 compensation in recognition of its “failure to communicate correctly” and its “failure to act proactively to resolve the issues [she] raised”.
Following this, the landlord’s contractor surveyed the conservatory. Based on its findings, the landlord agreed that the conservatory should be replaced. It ordered the new conservatory in April 2024 and carried out the replacement works in June 2024.
Meanwhile, during April and May 2024, the resident and landlord communicated by email about the level of compensation offered in the stage 2 response. The resident said that £500 was not enough to cover the cost of personal belongings that were damaged or to reflect that she had been unable to use the conservatory for 2 years.
On 24 May 2024 the landlord increased its compensation offer to £750. It said this was “in recognition of [its] service failures and inconvenience caused”. It also sent her an insurance form in order that she could submit a claim to its insurers for damage to her belongings.
On 2 June 2024 the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She explained that although the landlord was in the process of replacing the conservatory, its 2 year delay “caused mould”, the room was “not used” during this time, and her belongings were “ruined”. She said the £750 compensation the landlord offered did not reflect this.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in a conservatory

The landlord installed the conservatory before the resident’s tenancy began. It forms part of the tenancy agreement. The landlord does not dispute that it is responsible for keeping it in a good state of repair.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will:
1. take as little time as possible in completing a repair. It aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, routine repairs within 28 days, and major works within 90 days.
2. minimise the number of visits needed to complete a repair.
3. only use contractors “who are committed to providing high quality work and are suitably qualified and experienced to complete the work they have been asked to do”.
4. communicate effectively “where complex jobs are likely to take more time to ensure expectations are effectively managed and that tenants understand the timeframes around their repairs”.
The landlord failed to adhere to all of the above aspects of its policy when responding to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in the conservatory.
The resident first reported the leak on 19 April 2022. The landlord attended on 3 May 2022 to inspect. A roofing contractor then attended on 25 May 2022 and carried out a temporary repair. The contractor identified that further works were required to fully resolve the issue and told the landlord that it should instruct a “glazing company”.
The landlord carried out a further inspection on 30 June 2022, following which it recorded that it needed to seek quotes for glazing works. However, it has provided no evidence that it then sought quotes at that time. It provided no further updates to the resident. It therefore failed to comply with its repairs policy as it did not complete a full repair, appoint a suitable contractor to carry out the work, or communicate effectively with the resident.
On 4 January 2023 the resident reported that the conservatory was continuing to leak. The landlord attended on 30 January and 7 February 2023. Following this it obtained quotes for replacement glazing.
On 31 March 2023 the resident rang it to seek an update on the quotes and to report that the conservatory was continuing to leak. The landlord arranged for a roofing contractor to attend the property on 4 May 2023. It then cancelled this appointment on the grounds that it required a “glazing company” to attend. However, it did not proceed to instruct a glazing contractor. It did not provide the resident with an update. It therefore continued to fail to complete the repair, use suitable contractors and keep the resident updated in line with its repairs policy.
The resident submitted her first complaint on 26 May 2023. The landlord suggested in its stage 1 response to this that it had acted in accordance with its repairs policy. This was not accurate as it had failed to comply with many aspects of its policy, as outlined above. We have assessed complaint handling in more detail in the next section of this report.
In September 2023, while carrying out its stage 2 complaint investigation, the landlord arranged for an in-house UPVC specialist to survey the conservatory. A roofing contractor made it aware in May 2022 that a “glazing company” was required. Its records show it was also aware of this in May 2023 when it cancelled the roofing contractor’s appointment. It was unreasonable that it took the landlord 16 months from May 2022, and for the resident to submit a formal complaint and escalate it, before it instructed appropriately qualified personnel to investigate the issue.
The UPVC specialist identified that the repairs required were major works rather than a routine repair. The landlord advised the resident of this in its stage 2 response on 4 September 2023. It raised a works order with a contractor on 25 September 2023. However, by the time the landlord issued its further complaint response on 15 December 2023, the contractor had not responded to the works request.
The landlord told the resident in its complaint response of 15 December 2023 that it would follow up with the contractor. However, it should have done this sooner. In line with its repairs policy, it must aim to complete major works within 90 days. The landlord is accountable for the performance of its contractors. It should have measures in place to ensure that contractors are completing works within agreed timeframes. It was therefore unreasonable that it took for the resident to submit a new complaint before the landlord identified the contractor had not responded to its works request.
At some point between the December 2023 and February 2024 complaint responses, the landlord identified that it had not instructed the correct type of contractor. It told the resident in its stage 2 response on 14 February 2024 that it had since instructed a different contractor. It said it felt “the design of the conservatory would require a contractor who specialises in this field”. It provided no explanation as to why it took almost 2 years, and numerous inspections of the conservatory, to determine that a contractor specialising in conservatories was required.
The landlord followed through on its commitment in the stage 2 response to instruct a conservatory specialist. This resulted in it replacing the conservatory in June 2024. Existing structural walls remained in place. It was not until 7 November 2024 that the landlord inspected the walls and investigated the extent of any damp and mould caused by the leak. Following this, it proposed to the resident that it would carry out a mould treatment. This would have involved it removing large storage cupboards along one wall. The resident was concerned that the cupboards would not be able to be reinstated once removed as they were damaged by damp. She therefore asked the landlord to delay carrying out the treatment until the insurer had determined her compensation claim.
While we understand why the landlord has not yet carried out the mould treatment, that it took until 7 November 2024 before it inspected the walls for damp and mould was inappropriate.
Damp and mould is a hazard identified by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS states that the “mental and social health effects of dampness and mould should not be under–estimated. Damage to decoration from mould or damp staining and the smells associated with damp and mould can cause depression and anxiety.”
Throughout her complaint correspondence, and in numerous other communications with the landlord, the resident raised concerns about the impact the mould in the conservatory was having on her and her family. She explained she was worried about it from a health and safety perspective. She also told the landlord that it was “ruining everything” in the room. She said it meant the conservatory “literally cannot be used”.
The landlord instructed the operatives and contractors that attended the property between May 2022 and June 2024 to inspect the structure of the conservatory. There is no evidence that it arranged for any inspections of the reported damp and mould by “suitably qualified and experienced professionals” as required by its repairs policy during this time. The landlord’s UPVC specialist flagged that there was mould when reporting back on his survey findings in September 2023. However, when the landlord received this report, it took no action at that time to investigate the mould further. This was inappropriate.
The landlord did not offer the resident any advice or acknowledge her concerns about damp and mould in any of its 4 complaint responses. This was contrary to its damp and mould policy which required the landlord to provide a “empathetic, informative and solution focused” response to the resident’s reports. It failed to do this.
In October 2021 the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on damp and mould. We published an update report in February 2023 and further guidance is also available on our website. The spotlight report encourages landlords to adopt a zero tolerance approach and makes a series of recommendations. The landlord carried out a self-assessment against the recommendations in December 2023. It indicated in that assessment that it takes a “proactive approach” by encouraging residents to report damp and mould through multiple channels. While we do not doubt this, it is vital that it promptly follows up on all reports received in line with its policies. This is something it failed to do in the resident’s case. We would encourage the landlord to keep its self-assessment under regular review.
The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response in February 2024. It subsequently increased this to £750 in May 2024. It said it was for the “service failures and inconvenience caused” in relation to its repair of the conservatory. We are satisfied that in line with our remedies guidance, this was a reasonable level of compensation for the overall distress and inconvenience caused. However, this amount does not take account of the fact the resident was paying full rent despite being unable to use the conservatory due to the landlord’s delay in completing the repair.
It is evident that the conservatory provided valuable living space to the resident and her family, which includes her husband, 2 adult children and 2 younger children. Photographs show that they used it as a dining room and for storage prior to the leak. The resident told the landlord that since the leak began in April 2022, she had been unable to use the room. She said in her complaint correspondence in May 2023 that the “back of my house literally cannot be used.” She raised concerns in later correspondence that the wet floor was a health and safety concern, as was the damp and mould that had appeared. She told the landlord in February 2024 that “this room is not usable and we are paying for this”. At no stage did the landlord dispute that the room was not usable.
Given this, we find it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered an offer of compensation based on loss of amenity, in addition to compensation for “service failures and inconvenience”. That the landlord did not do so was a missed opportunity to ensure that it had made sufficient effort to put things right.
We note that the landlord provided the resident with information in May 2024 about how she could make a claim to its insurer for damage to her personal belongings. She submitted a claim form in November 2024 which the landlord then passed on to its insurer. This was an appropriate course of action as the insurer is best placed to determine liability for damage to personal possessions. If the resident is unhappy with the insurer’s decision, she may consider raising a complaint through the insurer’s internal processes. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to review its decision.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in her conservatory. It failed to adhere to numerous aspects of its repairs policy and damp and mould policy. This included failures to:
1. take as little time as possible to identify that the conservatory required replacement, and to then carry out the works. In line with its policy, this should have taken no more than 90 days.
2. minimise the number of visits to the property.
3. instruct the correct contractors.
4. manage the performance of its contractors in responding to works requests.
5. investigate the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
6. communicate with the resident and keep her updated.
7. compensate the resident for having paid full rent despite not having full use of the property.
If the landlord has not already paid the resident the £750 compensation it offered her in May 2024, we order it to do so. This is to compensate her for the distress and inconvenience caused by its severe maladministration.
We also order the landlord to pay the resident £1,776 compensation for her loss of use of the conservatory. We have calculated this based on 10% of an average rent of £148 per week over 120 weeks. The time period included is as follows:
1. A starting date of 18 July 2022. This was 90 days from when the resident first reported the leak. As major works were required to resolve the issue, the landlord should have aimed to complete the works by this date in accordance with its repairs policy.
2. An end date of 7 November 2024. This is the date the landlord inspected the conservatory for damp and mould. We understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to delay the treatment. However, we have not held the landlord accountable for any delay beyond this date given it has been willing to carry out the treatment from this date.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will not usually accept complaints if, “the same issues have already been raised by the [resident] and have already been considered through our complaints process”.
Given this, it is unclear why the landlord issued two separate sets of complaint responses to the resident’s concerns, which remained the same throughout. The first responses were in June 2023 and September 2023, the second in December 2023 and February 2024.
It is understandable why the resident complained for the second time. By the end of 2023 the landlord had made no progress in resolving the issues with her conservatory. However, the landlord has not recorded why it decided to raise a new complaint. It advised the resident in its stage 2 response in September 2023 that it was its “final response” and that she could refer the complaint to the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy. It could reasonably have reminded her of this when it received her further complaint. It would not have been prevented from progressing the repair issue pending our investigation.
There were many other aspects of its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that the landlord did not adhere to in each of its 4 complaint responses. For example, it failed to:
1. carry out thorough complaint investigations. It was only in its final complaint response that the landlord reviewed its actions dating back to the resident’s initial reports of a leak. It did not acknowledge in that response that it had failed to do this in its previous complaint responses.
2. address all aspects of the complaint. All 4 responses focussed only on the repair required to address the leak. None of the responses addressed the resident’s concerns about mould, damaged possessions or the room being unusable.
3. put in place an action plan for resolving the reported issues. The landlord’s complaints policy states where action is required to put things right, it will include a resolution plan with its complaint response. The plan will “outline what will be done to resolve any outstanding concerns and provide clear, reasonable timescales for this”. Contrary to this, the landlord provided no timeframes for further inspections or works in any of its complaint responses. It did not set out its findings to date or explain what “the works” would likely entail. In the December 2023 stage 1 response it suggested that if the resident did not hear from its contractor within 4 to 6 weeks, she should let the landlord know. This unfairly placed the onus on the resident to manage the response times of a contractor, who had already delayed, despite this being the landlord’s responsibility.
4. acknowledge its mistakes and learn from outcomes. The landlord did not acknowledge its mistakes in either of the stage 1 complaint responses. In the stage 2 responses it apologised for not instructing the correct contractors, for delay and for its communications. It also offered compensation in the final response for distress caused. However, in line with its complaints policy, it did not “provide an explanation of why any failures occurred”. It did not set out what steps it would take to “prevent reoccurrence”.
Overall, the landlord did not respond to the complaint in line with our dispute resolution principles which require landlords to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Given this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration.
Similar complaint handling issues have been identified in a number of other complaints the Ombudsman has investigated recently about the landlord. We have already made a series of orders for the landlord to review its complaint handling and to provide training to relevant staff. For that reason, we have made no learning orders on this case, but we will be monitoring the landlord’s actions in relation to the existing orders.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be made by a senior officer of at least Director level. It should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident £2,776 compensation comprised as follows:
  1. £1,776 which is rent based compensation for loss of use of the conservatory.
  2. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the severe maladministration in its response to the leaks, damp and mould. If the landlord has already paid the £750 compensation it offered the resident in May 2024, this amount can be deducted from the £2,776 ordered.
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its complaint handling.