Wandle Housing Association Limited (202413934)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413934

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. an electrical inspection test.
   2. the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident occupies a one-bedroom flat on the first floor. She has an assured tenancy agreement that started on 22 April 2002. During the complaints procedure she told the landlord she had anxiety and suffered from panic attacks. The landlord told us it had previously tried to flag this on its system, but the resident had asked it not to.
3. The landlord said it had attempted to carry out remedial work that it needed to complete after the previous electrical inspection in 2020. But it had be unable to do so. As a result, it said it had prioritised the periodic electrical inspection and brought it forward from its original due date in September 2025.
4. The landlord’s contractor tried to arrange an appointment for the electrical testing on 22 November 2023, 4 January 2024, and 22 January 2024. It then referred the matter back to the landlord. The landlord tried to call the resident and wrote a warning letter asking her to arrange the appointment otherwise it “may start the process of legal action”. When it did not hear back from her its legal representative sent a letter before action on 29 February 2024. This explained if the resident did not contact it within 7 days to arrange an appointment, it may take legal action to gain access to the property. The landlord did not hear from the resident, so it made a claim to the court for an injunction.
5. On 13 May 2024, the resident said she received a notice from the court about injunction proceedings by the landlord. The resident made an appointment with the contractor for 15 May 2024. During this appointment, the landlord conducted initial testing.
6. The resident made a complaint on 17 May 2024. She said:
   1. she had booked an appointment with the contractor for 15 May 2024. She had called the contractor the next day to confirm which work needed to be done. However, it was initially unable to locate details of the appointment that had taken place. She said this caused her anxiety.
   2. when the contractor found the booking, she said it told her it had noted her preference for the appointment on 15 May 2024 not to take place during the school run. However, she told it that the contractor had attended during school run hours.
   3. she also raised her concerns with the contractor because she felt the inspection was “rushed”. She said she was not satisfied the contractor acted professionally because it had put her on hold for a long time and could not tell her a list of the works. She said this added to her concerns the inspection was rushed.
   4. she also disputed with the contractor that it had inspected the front room. She said the contractor had advised her it would have tested as many points as possible they could get to. The resident said she had moved the furniture in the front room, so this did not allay her concerns.
   5. she had called the contractor a second time on the same day to book an appointment for 24 May 2024. This was so it could complete the follow up work. She said the contractor agreed to avoid the school run and to wear an ID badge.
   6. she called the contractor a third time that day for a reference number for the appointment she had made. She said it put her on hold for a “significant” amount of time and then told it could not find the booking. She said this caused her further anxiety and she had to remake the booking.
   7. she wanted the landlord to:
      1. provide her with a list in writing of the work that needed to be completed.
      2. ensure the contractor carried ID and was wearing full uniform of the company ID.
      3. ensure that she did not receive further correspondence from the contractor until the next electrical inspection or in the event of an emergency.
7. The contractor completed the follow up electrical work on 24 May 2024.
8. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 May 2024. It said:
   1. its contractor completed all the required work when it attended on 24 May 2024.
   2. it confirmed it cancelled the court hearing following its initial visit on “16 May 2024”.
   3. it confirmed its contractor would not be contact again until the next periodic inspection was due in 5 years’ time unless there were regulation changes.
9. The resident escalated her complaint on 31 May 2024 because:
   1. she said the contractor had caused her “stress” and “panic attacks”.
   2. the landlord, its contractors, and her neighbours had worked together to gain access to the property in “underhand ways” including intercepting her post and then taking legal action.
   3. the landlord’s decision to seek legal action had caused her “emotional damage”. She said this was compounded when she found out the inspection was not due until 2025.
   4. she thought the landlord may have planned to “plant a listening or video recording device” in her property if it had gained access.
   5. she felt that she did not have much time to ensure it gained access from when she received the notification of the court hearing date. She said this added to her stress.
   6. she felt the landlord’s contractor had “persistently” made things difficult to ensure the appointments were in its system. She added it gave her “the run around” and “[claimed] jobs were not booked” and then “finding bookings” on “more than three occasions”. She felt the landlord and its contractor had disregarded her mental health because of this.
10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 July 2024 and upheld its stage 1 response. It said:
    1. it agreed with the content in its previous response.
    2. it understood that the post going missing contributed to difficulty in agreeing an appointment. But it had done “what [was] expected in terms of notifying [her] and [it] followed the access policy”. This meant it reasonably sought a court hearing to carry out its electrical test.
    3. it was important that “despite not receiving the notifications” the resident must provide access to the property as stated in her tenancy agreement. As such, it and the contractor had “acted as [it] would expect”.
    4. it was aware that remedial work was due after its inspection in 2020. It was unable to contact the resident to complete this at the time. As such it felt the next text needed to be completed sooner to ensure her home was safe.
    5. it had accessed the contractor’s appointment system and could not find a missed appointment on 1 March 2024. It invited the resident to provide further evidence about this.
    6. it had checked its own records and found it had called the resident on 21 February 2024. But she did not accept the call handler was from the landlord. It said it tried to call her again but the “same thing happened”. It explained it recognised the resident “may not want to take calls” but this made it more difficult to” keep her up to date” or “resolve issues”.
    7. it asked the resident to let it know if she preferred it to communicate with her in a different way.
    8. it apologised because:
       1. The resident was disappointed with its service.
       2. She had suffered stress and anxiety because of the process to gain access. It said this looked to be because the resident had not received notifications about this due to her post being intercepted.
    9. it said it would:
       1. ensure her feedback was listened to and learned from.
       2. it would pass on her concerns about her post to the tenancy officer to assist her further.
11. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 27 August 2024. She said she felt the landlord had made it “very difficult” to book the electrical test before the court date. She wanted the landlord to acknowledge its failures and pay her compensation to recognise the distress caused by starting legal action.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. As part of the complaint, the landlord contextually referred to events that occurred during 2020. This was to explain why it decided to take earlier action to arrange its electrical inspection survey. The events that occurred during 2020 were not the subject of the resident’s complaint. As such, we have not investigated or drawn any conclusions from these events in this report.

The electrical inspection

13. The landlord has a legal obligation to carry out certain repairs under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This includes keeping in repair and working order installations for the supply of electricity. This is also written in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
14. The landlord’s electrical safety policy states:
    1. it will ensure that it will maintain the electrical installations. It does this by ensuring they are in a safe condition by complying with the requirements of current electrical safety legislation. It commits to carrying out a full electrical condition report every 5 years.
    2. it will review completed electrical installation test certificates, and the recommendations made and ensuring the required remedial works are prioritised accordingly.
    3. it will write to residents in advance of required access dates to provide an initial appointment that can be altered on request.
15. The landlord operates a ‘No Access’ policy when dealing with statutory inspection. This states:
    1. it will use “absolute endeavours” to arrange access for statutory inspections such as electrical checks. This includes applying for “lifetime injunctions” to gain access to the property.
    2. its contractor will send 3 letters informing residents of an appointment with at least 7 days’ notice before the appointment. When attending the appointment, if the contractor does not gain access, it will provide evidence of non-access such as photographs of the “door/leaflet etc”.
    3. an officer of the landlord will send a reminder letter asking the resident to make an appointment within 7 days, after which it will send a letter before action.
    4. if there is no response to the letter before action, the landlord will consider “statutory no access cases” at its “no access panel” before seeking legal redress to recommend the next steps.
    5. if the landlord decides to commence legal proceedings, it commits, at this time, to “attempting to make access arrangements” with the resident on “at least a weekly basis” and recording this on its case management system.
16. The resident said the electrical safety inspection was not due to take place until September 2025. As such, she felt the landlord acted disproportionately to gain access to the property earlier than was necessary. The landlord provided evidence that the resident’s property underwent an electrical inspection in 2020. After which, it did not satisfactorily pass the inspection. The landlord also said it had difficulty carrying out the required work after its inspection. It told the resident in its stage 2 response that this was why it prioritised the inspection to take place earlier.
17. We are unable to draw a conclusion about the events that occurred during 2020 about why the required work did not take place. This is because they in of themselves are not the subject of the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord was aware the required work did not take place, and the property did not satisfy the electrical inspection in 2020. Therefore, its explanation that it needed to prioritise the inspection before it was due in September 2025 was reasonable. This was in line with its electrical safety policy to ensure required remedial works are prioritised.
18. The resident reported to the landlord on 13 May 2024 that her post was being intercepted by her neighbours. She said she had not taken further action to about this because she was concerned the landlord was colluding the neighbour and she “feared reprisals”. As a result, she did not know the landlord was trying to arrange an electrical inspection. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had “done what was expected of [it] in terms of notifying [the resident]”.
19. The evidence shows the landlord’s contractor sent the resident 3 letters between November 2023 and January 2024. This contained an appointment date with 7 days’ notice and invited the resident to contact it should the time or date be unsuitable. This was reasonable because it was in line with both its electrical safety policy and no access policy to write to the resident to provide an initial appointment that could be altered on request.
20. Further, the landlord nor its contractor were aware at the time it was sending the letters that the resident was not receiving her post or that she had concerns that her post was being intercepted or interfered with. This is because the resident notified the landlord of this during May 2024, which was after the letters were issued. On this basis, there is no evidence the landlord’s contractor acted unreasonably when it sent the letters by post to arrange an appointment. Further, when the landlord became aware of the resident’s concerns it signposted her to the police and raised the matter with her tenancy officer to assess whether it could support her further. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
21. The landlord’s contractors said that it attended each of the 3 appointments listed in its letters and could not gain access to the property. It added:
    1. during the first appointment it called the resident, but it went to voicemail, and it left a calling card.
    2. during the second appointment it spoke with the resident 11 days before to confirm it would attend after 1pm. However, there was no answer at the door and when it called her the phone went to voicemail. It said it left a calling card.
    3. during the third appointment, the operative called the resident when they arrived. However, they said the resident told them she was not at home.
22. The landlord did not provide supporting evidence that its contractor called the resident or left calling cards when it attended the property for these appointments. Due to poor record keeping we are not satisfied it adequately demonstrated it complied with its no access policy to provide supporting evidence of non-access. The evidence of calling cards and telephone calls were important because they would have demonstrated the landlord was using a variety of methods to meaningfully engage with the resident.
23. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information”. It further states that a landlord’s failings to create and record information accurately result in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
24. The landlord said that its contractor then passed the case back to it to progress the inspection. This was in line with its no access policy. It said that it called the resident on 21 February 2024 to arrange the inspection. It said the resident did not accept the call handler was from the landlord. It then sent a warning letter to the resident explaining her contractual obligation to allow access to the property so it could complete the inspection. This contained details of how to book an inspection and that it would consider taking legal action if she did not act.
25. The landlord did not provide any corroborating evidence in its repair logs or case management system that it called the resident on 21 February 2024. A record of this interaction should reasonably have been kept. That it was not is further evidence of poor record keeping. While we have not seen evidence relating to the call it is acknowledged that sending the warning letter was in accordance with the landlord’s no access policy.
26. The landlord’s legal representative issued a letter before action to the resident on 29 February 2024. This explained that the resident needed to arrange an electrical inspection in 7 days, or it would initiate legal proceedings.
27. The landlord’s no access policy commits to reviewing “statutory no access cases” at its “no access panel” before commencing legal action. The landlord did not evidence it did this and if it failed to do so, this was a departure from its policy. If the matter was referred to a panel, notes from the hearing and any follow up actions should have been recorded. That we have not been provided of such evidence is further poor record keeping.
28. The landlord provided evidence that the resident updated her email address through its portal on 4 January 2024. The landlord and its contractor were having difficulty contacting the resident. Therefore, it is unclear why it did not assess whether it had used all the contact methods on file to engage with the resident to progress the inspection. Had it done so, it could have used this information to try to communicate with the resident in an alternative way before taking further action. This would have demonstrated it acted in line with the spirit of its policy to use “absolute endeavours” to meaningfully engage with the resident.
29. This was a missed opportunity to ensure it had exhausted all methods of communication with the resident. And to show that it had come to a reasoned decision that seeking legal redress was proportionate action. We acknowledge that the resident said the legal proceedings caused her emotional distress. This was linked to the landlord’s failure to demonstrate it had followed its no access policy to review the case.
30. The landlord went on the initiate legal proceedings to apply for an injunction to gain access to the property so it could conduct the inspection. The resident said she thought the landlord intended to gain access to her property to “plant a listening and recording device”. There is no evidence that the landlord’s intention when it initiated proceedings was for any other purpose than inspect the property to ensure the electrics were safe. This was to comply with its legal and contractual obligations. It is evident the landlord’s difficulty in gaining access to the property impacted its ability to complete its statutory inspection.
31. We consider that it is generally responsible and appropriate for a landlord to take all reasonable efforts to meet its statutory obligations. This includes considering whether legal action was proportionate in the circumstances to help to mitigate health and safety risks to residents. We do not consider initiating legal proceedings in and of itself to be a failure. But that the landlord’s failure to assess the case and the proportionality of its actions before doing so, was not in line with its policy.

Conclusion

32. We have considered what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and that the landlord’s overriding obligation was to ensure the property was safe. As such it reasonably initiated its no access policy. However, we could not be satisfied, based on the record keeping failures, that the landlord followed its policy. Given the landlord initiated legal proceedings we would have expected it to act in line with its policy and demonstrate it had considered whether this was proportionate action to take. Part of this assessment would have reasonably included evidence that it had used its “absolute endeavours” to contact the resident to arrange the inspection. Ultimately the landlord’s policy set an expectation for the resident that it would consider her case. The notice of legal proceedings caused her distress. Therefore, the landlord’s inaction caused detriment to the resident.
33. We consider the culmination of the failures we have identified amounted to maladministration. Overall, the landlord made some attempt to put things right but did not address the detriment to the resident. In doing so it failed to act in line with our dispute resolution principles to “Be fair, Put things right, Learn from outcomes”. This is because the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that its attempts at contacting the resident had been unsuccessful. It asked the resident if she wanted it to communicate with her in a different way. However, the landlord did not recognise its failure to consider the resident’s case before seeking legal redress. This meant it did not explain what it would do to put things right, or any learning it had identified.
34. To prevent situations like this from occurring again and to put things right, the landlord must assess its record keeping practices. This is to ensure that it identifies any wider learning about how it records the actions it takes to evidence it is following its policy and acting fairly in the circumstances. The landlord must also apologise and pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress caused by its failures.

Complaint handling

35. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
36. The resident complained on 17 May 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 May 2024, which was 6 working days later. This was appropriate because the landlord acted in line with the timeframes set out in the Code.
37. The landlord must answer all elements of a resident’s complaint. The majority of the resident’s original complaint was about how the landlord’s contractor had handled booking the appointments on 15 May 2024 and 24 May 2024 and her request for confirmation about the follow up work required. There is no evidence the landlord investigated this matter or that it addressed the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response. This was a failure to act in accordance with the Code. This caused the resident distress because the landlord had not addressed her full complaint.
38. In addition to this the landlord referred to the wrong date in its stage 1 response for the initial inspection. We recognise this did not cause a detriment to the resident because she was aware of the dates. However, the landlord is reminded of the importance checking the information it provides in its formal responses is accurate.
39. The resident escalated her complaint on 31 May 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 July 2024, which was 26 working days later. Although this was outside of the timeframes set out in the Code, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was significantly inconvenienced as a result. However, the landlord is reminded it should be taking steps to ensure it is responding to complaints in line with the timeframes set out in the Code.
40. The resident re-iterated in her escalation request that she was concerned about the conduct of the landlord’s contractors when the appointments were raised. The landlord addressed a specific appointment the resident had raised concerning 1 March 2024. It said that in doing so it said it had access to its contractor’s case management database. As such it is unclear why the landlord did not conduct a full investigation into the resident’s concerns about all of the appointments and the scope of work in her initial complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 response was a further missed opportunity to answer all of the resident’s complaint. This caused the resident further distress because she felt the landlord had not taken her concerns seriously.
41. The landlord did not answer all elements of the resident’s complaint at both stages of the complaint process. It also failed to acknowledge this at stage 2 of the process. As such we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
42. We have considered our ‘Remedies Guidance’ to consider a fair and proportionate remedy to the failings we have found. To put things right the landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in our investigation. It must also pay her £100 compensation to recognise the distress its failure caused. The resident explained the contractor’s handling of her queries remained outstanding for her. As such the landlord must investigate the resident’s concerns about:
    1. the contractors handling of the appointments on 15 May 2024 and 24 May 2024.
    2. her request for the scope of work.

It must write to her with its findings and assess whether any detriment was caused to her as a result.

43. Our recent investigations into the landlord have found that the issues identified in this complaint are a recurring theme. We have made an order in our determination of case reference 202230608 relating to training for complaint handling staff and a quality assurance process to ensure the robustness of the complaint handling procedure. As such, we will monitor the orders we have already made in respect of this. In light of this we will not make any further orders in relation to its complaint handling.

Determination

44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in its handling of the electrical inspection.
45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

46. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident £200 comprised of:
       1. £100 in recognition of the distress caused by its handling of the electrical inspection.
       2. £100 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
    3. write to the resident and the Ombudsman with its findings concerning:
       1. how its contractor handled her enquiries about:

(1)  the appointments she made for 15 May 2024 and 24 May 2024.

(2)  the request for the scope of work.

2. any detriment caused to the resident as a result.

4. the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman of compliance with all of the orders set out above.

47. Within 56 days of the date of this determination the landlord must assess its record keeping about the inspection investigated in this report. This must include:
    1. identifying the minimum standards that ought to have been recorded in its repair log and/or case management system.
    2. which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why.

The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified. To assist it in doing this it may wish to consult the following recommendations in our Spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’: 

1. recommendation 8.
2. recommendation 11.
3. recommendation 12.
4. recommendation 13.