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

Wandsworth Council (202231534)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231534

Wandsworth Council

14 August 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. concerns about a stopcock valve
    2. request for replacement of windows.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 4th floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. A Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) was set up to manage the block. The TMO employed a managing agent to manage housing activities on the estate. For clarity, the landlord and the managing agent are referred to as ‘the landlord’ in this report, except for where it is necessary to distinguish between the two.
  2. The landlord’s records show a number of appointments for a window repair to the resident’s flat between 12 July 2022 and 2 November 2022. On 2 November 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that a stop valve in his flat was not working and, as such, his water provider could not install a water meter. On 6 December 2022, he reported a further repair for his windows and chased an update on 13 December 2022 and again on 19 December 2022. The landlord replied on 23 January 2023 and provided the resident with a list of missed and cancelled appointments from the window contractor’s records.
  3. On 27 January 2023, the resident raised another complaint. He said that the landlord’s information was inaccurate and disputed that he missed any appointments and said that the contractor had missed an appointment with him. He said that he raised a complaint about the contractors missed attendance but that his complaint was ignored. He also said that his issue with the stopcock valve was ignored for 6-7 weeks, but when he got through to the landlord on the phone the query was answered within minutes.
  4. On 10 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. The landlord advised that its contractors said that the window repair did not go ahead because of late cancellations and appointment changes by the resident and no access to the property. It said that it had already advised the resident that the stopcock valve was his responsibility as a leaseholder. It apologised that it had been slow to respond and said it would discuss learnings for the customer experience. It said that it was difficult to determine where the window repair had fallen down but as a resolution it would liaise with the resident and contractors to arrange a suitable date for all parties.
  5. On 10 February 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. He was unhappy that the landlord failed to acknowledge previous complaints and did not address the 2-month period where it failed to respond to his emails about the stopcock valve. He queried how the landlord’s learnings about communication benefited him. He disagreed that the window contractor had tried to contact him, that he cancelled any appointments, or that he denied access. He asked the landlord for evidence where it had notified him of cancellations and highlighted the number of times he chased the window repair. The resident said that the landlord’s complaint investigation was not thorough and that it should have provided redress for the delays.
  6. On 10 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It accepted that the resident had raised a complaint 6 months previously about the contractors, but it failed to acknowledge or deal with it. It apologised for this failing. It reviewed its repair notes and noted that it approved window replacement to the property on 18 July 2022. It said that 3 appointments for the window repair had an audit trail of being cancelled at the resident’s request.
  7. It said that it could not establish as fact who cancelled or declined the repair appointments given the different experiences of its contractors and the resident and the lack of full notes on the reasons for cancellations. It said that it held no record of telephone calls from the resident enquiring about the stopcock valve, but it had apologised for this delay at stage 1. It advised that it would not offer the resident any compensation for the time spent chasing the repairs as its compensation policy did not allow for it. 
  8. When the resident brought his complaint to this Service, he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. As a resolution to the complaint, he wanted the landlord to replace the windows and to provide redress for the time and trouble caused to him in chasing the window replacement and information on the stopcock valve.
  9. Since the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord has advised this Service that its agreement with the TMO came to an end in August 2023 and it now directly manages the housing functions. This was because of concerns about poor performance, including record keeping. It advised that it does not hold any information on the property.         

Assessment and findings

Scope 

  1. Since the resident brought his complaint to this Service, he has instructed a solicitor to pursue a disrepair claim which included the replacement of his windows, however, proceedings have not yet been issued. As such, the complaint remains within the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman. This investigation has focussed on how the landlord responded to the resident’s repair request and whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a stopcock valve

  1. It is not disputed that the landlord was not responsible for the stopcock valve replacement. The resident complained that he chased a new stopcock valve from the landlord for 6 to 7 weeks before it confirmed that as a leaseholder, he was responsible for the repair. In its complaint response the landlord advised that it did not hold telephone records but apologised for the delay in providing him with this information.
  2. If a resident requests a repair that is not the landlord’s responsibility, it would be reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident accordingly in a timely fashion. It is also considered that as a leaseholder, the resident’s responsibilities are set out in the lease. In the circumstances, this Service finds that an apology from the landlord was reasonable when it recognised its failure. 

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement of windows

  1. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of its lease agreement. Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was responsible for the replacement of the windows. This is because it approved a work order to replace the windows. Furthermore, it said it would replace the windows as a resolution to its stage 2 complaint.
  2. Based on the evidence provided to this Service, the first appointment to carry out the repair was on 12 July 2022, but this repair was marked as cancelled. The landlord does not hold currently hold any repair records for the property. The resident states that the windows have not yet been replaced. This is an unreasonable period of time to complete the repair in this Service’s opinion.
  3. In its complaint response the landlord stated that after review of its repair records “it is not possible to establish as fact who cancelled or declined in every instance, given the difference between your experience and the contractors, and the lack of full notes on the reasons for cancellations.” The landlord’s inadequate record keeping hampered its own complaint investigation.
  4. When the resident escalated his complaint, he said that the contractor failed to contact him since they failed to show up to an agreed appointment. The resident requested evidence from the landlord that the contractors had attempted to contact him. He advised that he raised the same issues about the contractors in an earlier complaint that was not addressed by the landlord. 
  5. Based on the limited evidence provided to this Service, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was responsible for the repair delay. In his complaint to the landlord the resident was consistent that its contractors failed to attend to the repair in September 2022. In its complaint investigation, the landlord cannot establish why the repair appointments were cancelled or declined because of its poor record keeping practices.  
  6. When the resident escalated his complaint, he said that his issues with the contractors were documented in a complaint 6 months previously and asked the landlord to review that correspondence. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted that it failed to acknowledge, or respond to, a complaint from the resident 6 months previously about its contractors, however, it did not refer to the resident’s previous complaint against the contractors in its complaint response. 
  7. The landlord’s complaint investigation relied on repair record’s which it accepted were inconclusive. It stated it had an audit trail of 3 cancellations at the resident’s request. The resident disputed this position when he brought his complaint to this Service. The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence of the audit trail referred to in its stage 2 complaint response. It is unclear to this Service how the landlord concluded that the resident cancelled 3 appointments.
  8. It is acknowledged that the TMO was responsible for the housing management, however, the resident had a contractual relationship with the landlord, and as such, it remained the responsibility of the landlord to respond appropriately to the resident’s repair request. In effect, the TMO’s failures were the landlord’s failures. The landlord should have had agreed service level agreements in place with the TMO and a clear process for escalating unresolved issues to ensure its responsibilities to the resident were met. There was no evidence of oversight from the landlord.
  9. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement of windows. This is because it has not replaced the windows and its record keeping does not demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to do so.
  10. Because the resident is pursuing a disrepair claim which includes the replacement windows, it is not appropriate for this Service to order the repair. However, the landlord’s failures caused considerable inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. An order of compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a complaint about his stopcock valve on 2 November 2022. He further complained about the window replacement on 27 January 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was provided on 10 February 2023. This was 60 working days beyond the Code’s timescales of providing a stage 1 complaint response. The landlord further accepted in its stage 2 complaint response that it failed to acknowledge or respond to a complaint 6 months previously about its contractors. This was inappropriate. It is evident that the landlord’s complaint handling failures caused considerable time and trouble to the resident. 
  3. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it did not offer compensation for time spent. The complaints process is an opportunity for the landlord to identify learnings and to put things right for the resident. When the landlord identified its record keeping failures and its failure to complete the repair it should have considered the time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing the repair.
  4. As a resolution to the complaint, the landlord advised that it would liaise with both the resident and contractor to improve the communications and replace the windows. This Service has not seen any evidence of communication since the stage 2 complaint response. However, the repair remains outstanding.
  5. It is acknowledged that the TMO handled the resident’s complaint, however, the resident had a contractual relationship with the landlord, and as such, it remained the responsibility of the landlord to respond appropriately to the resident’s complaint. Because the landlord has since ended the contract with the TMO, this Service has not made any learning orders in respect of the complaint handling failures.
  6. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it delayed in responding to the initial complaint. Its complaint investigation identified a previous complaint which it failed to acknowledge, however the landlord did not consider any redress in the form of compensation to put things right for the resident. An order of compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman Remedies Guidance to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling.  

Record keeping. 

  1. This investigation was hampered by the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors. The landlord’s repair record keeping was inappropriate.
  2. The landlord noted that its record keeping was poor in its stage 2 complaint response. It stated, “it is not possible to establish as fact who cancelled or declined in every instance, given the difference between your experience and the contractors, and the lack of full notes on the reasons for cancellations.”
  3. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its repair works. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and its contractors, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that its contractors reasonably communicated with the resident. The landlord has failed to show how it satisfied itself even when it had an opportunity to do so within its complaint response.
  4. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping. It is acknowledged that the landlord recognised that there were record keeping issues by the TMO. It advised this Service that poor record keeping was a reason why it took back it ended its agreement with the TMO. This demonstrates learning and a commitment to improvement. But for this action this Service would have made a finding of severe maladministration. It has committed to reviewing the Housing Ombudsman’s Services Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and providing training to its staff. This Service has not made any orders that would duplicate this commitment.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in response to the resident’s concerns about a stopcock valve, in the form of an apology, prior to investigation which, in this Service’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement windows.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. It is ordered for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
  2. If it has not already done so, it is ordered for the landlord to survey the windows and provide the resident with a timescale for it to replace the windows.
  3. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £500 compromising:
    1. £300 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident by its failure to address the repair
    2. £200 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.