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

Wandsworth Council (202305904)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305904

Wandsworth Council

29 November 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about refurbishment works at the property and the subsequent remedial works.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord has stated that she has informed it she suffers with medical and mental health issues, including skin disorders, fibromyalgia, COPD asthma, panic attacks and complex post-traumatic stress disorder.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord between 8 April 2022 and 23 April 2022 stating that its contractors who were conducting refurbishment works in her property had caused some damage within her property.
  3. The landlord attended the resident’s property with a representative from the contractor on 15 June 2022 but the visit ended early due the resident becoming distressed. The representative requested a new date for a visit and informed it that she had other concerns.
  4. In her complaint to the landlord on 29 July 2022, the resident stated that she had made it clear to the contractors at the start of the works that she had disabilities and health conditions, but they had no concerns for her health. Its officer had not responded to the issues she had raised including the removal of the gas safety cut–off lever. There were other outstanding issues, and she had compiled a file containing the history of all works at the property, but it had shown no interest in looking at it including during the visit made on 15 June 2022. She wanted it to visit the property and look at a file she had made available.
  5. In its stage 1 response on 26 August 2022, the landlord explained why it did not view the file the resident had produced. It said it was not informed of an incident regarding the contractors’ consideration for the resident’s health and provided an explanation regarding the nature of the works. It addressed the visit from 15 June 2022 and her request to reschedule the meeting and provided a response to the outstanding works she had raised.
  6. The resident responded to the landlord on 4 September 2023. She said she had been ignored about her health, that items in her kitchen had not been covered up while works took place and had issues with other works. She repeated that her file was offered to it and its contractor to read but neither seemed interested. She questioned its statement that its officer was not aware of a request to rearrange the meeting, its responses regarding her health, the outstanding repairs, the gas lever and expected the works to be completed.
  7. During a visit to her property on 19 January 2023, the resident provided a report to the landlord regarding the works by its contractor, including photographs of her concerns. She also raised further issues which included issues regarding the installation of a new boiler.
  8. Following contact by the Ombudsman on 11 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 August 2023. It responded to the resident’s reports of poor quality installations by its contractors, the contractor’s cleanliness and attitude during the works, reports regarding the central heating, electrical box works. It did not uphold these elements of her complaint. It did uphold elements of her complaint relating to complaint handling and her stating she was given conflicting information about the works required.
  9. The resident referred the complaint to this Service as she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Refurbishment and remedial works

  1. The landlord did not provide any its repairs policy or its measurable service standards for repairs. Therefore, the Ombudsman will look at the information provided by it and the resident and consider whether its approach was in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. For routine day to day repairs, the general standard amongst social landlords is around 28 working days. These response times have been taken as a baseline against which to consider the landlord’s actions in this case.
  3. The resident informed the landlord on 8 April 2022 that its contractors who were conducting refurbishment works in her property had caused issues including scratches to her fridge freezer, dirt marks due to not covering items, the fridge was plugged into a broken socket with wires hanging out, and her cooker was disconnected without any warning. She informed it that she had health issues. On 19 April 2022 she said the tiler who was scheduled to attend her property did not arrive and communication from the contractors was bad. It responded on the same day to say her concerns had been passed to the officer handling major works.
  4. The resident informed the landlord that the trickle vent in the downstairs toilet was broken by the contractor on 23 April 2022. It responded on 25 April 2022, stating that a reply would be sent within 10 working days. On the same day, it asked its contractor to investigate her reports. There is no evidence the landlord issued any further response or updates to her regarding any of those issues raised or that raised any repair works.
  5. The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 7 June 2022. They requested a visit to inspect the work conducted by its contractor, noting works conducted to the kitchen flooring, light fittings, and electrical sockets. They stated that the contractor’s staff had entered her property on 4 May 2022 while paramedics were examining her, despite being told not to do so. The contractor was displaying a lack of health and safety standards including leaving tools in hallways, allowing dust to circulate, and not clearing walkways. The entry security door was left open permanently and there was a lack of caring about people with disabilities despite being informed of someone with breathing difficulties and using a nebuliser. 
  6. Following the landlord’s visit to the property, on 15 June 2022, the representative emailed it the same day apologising on the resident’s behalf. They explained that an incident which resulted in the visiting being cut short had occurred due to her medical condition. They asked if a new date could be arranged as there were other issues still to bring up. They also stated that she was concerned about safety due to the location of a gas cut off valve which was difficult to reach after the removal of one that was located at a lower level by the contractor. There is no evidence provided to indicate that it responded to this email.
  7. The complaint to the landlord on 29 July 2022 stated that the resident had compiled a folder containing the history of all works at the property, but it had shown no interest in looking at it. It also stated that at the start of contracted works, she had informed the contractor that she had disabilities including asthma, COPD, Fibromyalgia, and vertigo but they had no concerns for her health. Two managers from the contractor and 1 of its officers saw her using a nebuliser and was aware she wanted them to act regarding a lack of health and safety issues due to excessive dust in her property.
  8. In the complaint, the resident narrated starting to have a breakdown during the visit of 15 June 2022. She stated that the contractor’s officer did show concern, but the landlord’s officer did not. Its officer had not responded to the issues raised including the removal of the reachable gas safety cut off lever which left the original lever that was too high for anyone to reach. The contractor had told her to use a step ladder to reach the gas leaver despite her disclosing that she had vertigo and fibromyalgia. There were outstanding issues including a broken extractor fan. She wanted a further visit to the property and for them to look at the file she had made available.
  9. There is no evidence to show that the landlord took any actions in relation to the issues raised in the complaint. It has also not evidence that it gave any consideration to either the resident’s stated vulnerabilities while the works took place or regarding her informing it that she could not reach the gas cut-off valve in case of an emergency. This was a failure by it to demonstrate it empathised with her situation. It has not shown that it made attempts to establish if she required any reasonable adjustments while the ongoing issues were addressed. The landlord’s repairs records at this time do not show any repairs raised since she made her initial contact in April 2022.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 August 2022. It apologised for the delay in its response and explained as follows:
    1. Its officer who visited the resident’s property acknowledged she had pointed out the file but stated she had said it was too lengthy to go through and it was not presented to the officer to read.
    2. Its officer stated they were not informed of the incident regarding the nebuliser. All residents were made aware of the nature of the works, that disruption would occur, and dust would be generated. Having the doors and windows open for the duration of the works was the easiest way to reduce the build-up of dust and there were no resources available to have a cleaner in the properties each day. There would be a handyman deployed upon completion of the works to conduct a builder’s clean.
    3. The visit that took place was only able to address one issue prior to the resident becoming distressed. When she became distressed, its officer became concerned and asked to leave the property. It stated that it had no knowledge of communication regarding the rescheduling of the appointment but following a further check it was discovered to have gone to a spam email folder.
    4. With regards to the issues the resident had raised, the vinyl flooring required no further works, she wanted her own light fitting which would be her responsibility, the gas emergency shut off valve was in the correct position and could only be moved by the energy provider. The issue was with boxing around the boiler being altered and the contractor would be asked to put that right, and an access hatch above the kitchen was slightly loose but cutting it any wider would mean thermal changes making it difficult to open.
    5. It was satisfied its officer took the correct actions on the visit as they were expected to risk assess the situation they were in and acknowledged it was difficult for it to gauge its officer’s demeanour and link that to a lack of concern of the resident’s vulnerabilities during the visit.
  11. The landlord’s response did provide an explanation to the resident of the status of the works it said she had raised. It however could have gone further to show it appropriately considered her reports of effects the works were having on her health and the height of the gas lever. It did not show it considered conducting a risk assessment and potential reasonable adjustments given her stated vulnerabilities mention of more outstanding works to be addressed.
  12. The resident disputed most of the landlord’s responses in her own response of 4 September 2023. She repeated her request for a visit to see the property and her file.. She acknowledged stating at the meeting in July 2023 that the folder would be too long to read, but said it was also told there were photographs to look at and that did not happen. She said she expected works to be completed including to light fittings and sockets, along with any other issues that she had not had the chance to raise. She had waited 2 months without contact, verbal communications were dismal with no factual proof of what was said which was why the file was produced.
  13. The landlord has not evidenced it responded to the resident’s letter, the points she had raised or if it considered this response to be a dissatisfaction of her complaint and contact her to establish if she wished to progress her complaint.
  14. The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 14 September 2022 on her behalf about the gas lever. On 28 September 2022 she also wrote to it and said she was still waiting for a response. The landlord stated in a response to her MP on 30 September 2022 that the gas lever was installed on the gas supply prior to the meter and was the responsibility of the gas network supplier. It said she was seeking an additional emergency control valve (AECV), and it had arranged for its contractor to attend the property and ascertain the suitability of installing an AECV. The landlord stated works were completed on 4 October 2022.
  15. This was a positive step taken by the landlord and a positive outcome for the resident. However, it was completed 78 working days after she first informed it of her concerns about the lever. This was an unnecessary delay and outside of what would be considered a reasonable timescale given the concerns she had raised with it previously.
  16. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with a list of rectifications required as of 21 November 2022. She stated that a copy was provided to the landlord, but the Ombudsman is unable to verify if or when that took place. The list is extensive and includes works to the kitchen, hallway, downstairs WC, and bathroom.
  17. The resident also provided to the Ombudsman evidence of a report she said she gave to the landlord during a visit to her property on 19 January 2023 regarding the works of the contractor, including photographs of her concerns. These include issues following the installation of a new boiler. In its stage 2 response it does refer to this meeting and that a full inspection of works took place.
  18. On 24 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and stated there were issues with the tumble dryer vent being too low causing puddles of water and paint to peel off woodwork. She provided photographs to it of the issue.
  19. Between 26 January 2023 and 4 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord asking if could arrange for its contractor to attend her property as she was having issues with the boiler including pressure issues, the temperature dropping, water pressure low and radiators not being warm. It responded on 6 February 2023, asking her to call its heating section to arrange an engineer to visit. It Is not clear why it would have instructed her to do so given she had already made it aware of the issues in the weeks prior and it had already internally asked for works to be raised. This indicated a record keeping failure which would have added to the distress and frustration felt by her.
  20. It is acknowledged that the resident reported a substantial number of faults and defects to the landlord following the refurbishment works conducted by its contractor. Except for a door adjustment in August 2022, the additional gas valve in October 2022 and works raised for pipework in December 2022, there was no evidence of any further works being raised by it since her reports from April 2022. This was a failure by it to appropriately manage her expectations considering the number of requests she had made and provide her with a solution or explanation to her ongoing reports.
  21. On 9 March 2023, the landlord internally asked for an engineer to visit the resident’s property due to her report of defects to the boiler, including heating the dwelling inefficiently. An appointment was booked for 14 March 2023. This appointment came at least 2 months after she first raised her concerns regarding the boiler and was a significant failing by the landlord considering the issues she had raised and those were raised through the winter months. There was however no evidence this visit took place. On 27 March 2023, it emailed her and confirmed an order had been raised for its contractor to investigate the boiler issues, but no further information or dates were provided.
  22. In the same email the landlord stated that after a telephone conversation with the resident she had raised that the mechanical extractor fan in the bathroom was defective.
  23. The landlord’s records show on 28 March 2023 it asked its contractor for an update on the appointment scheduled for 14 March 2023. Its contractor stated it received no access to the resident’s property, had tried to call her and sent an email. It was established that the wrong telephone numbers were being used and the contractor was asked to recontact her. While the landlord could have found out about the failed visit sooner, it is positive that it chased for an update, and thus was able to resolve the issue.
  24. The resident raised several more issues with the landlord between 7 May 2023 and 18 June 2023. These issues were regarding flashing lights on the electric circuit and works on the extractor fan not being complete. Although there were some works orders raised by the landlord, its records are not clear what works took place or that all of the works were completed.
  25. Following contact by this Service it apologised to the resident that the stage 2 complaint referral guidance was not offered to her. It issued a further letter on 26 July 2023 stating it would send its response by 7 August 2023.   
  26. The resident informed this Service on 7 July 2023 that the landlord had not done anything about the outstanding issues. Following contact by this Service the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 August 2023. It said the Ombudsman had identified her complaint as comprising of its handling of reports of poor-quality installation of her kitchen, bathroom, and downstairs toilet by its contractor. There were also reports that the contractors failed to clean and tidy after the work was done and had poor attitude. There were reports of a fault with the central heating thermostat, an electrical box earthing fault when an upstairs socket is used, and delays in the landlord responding to the complaint.
  27. The landlord stated that it understood that at a meeting at the resident’s property on 19 January 2023 a full inspection of the property was conducted and a definitive list of defects noted. The list comprised of the boiler to be checked, and an electrician to inspect an extract fan and fuse box. It noted that, of the other issues she had raised, she had stated that she would not like anyone to be sent to make good and would accept these as complete as she did not want any further liaison with the contractor. It understood she no longer accepted the work as complete and wished to have all items on the list sent to the Ombudsman to be rectified.
  28. The landlord provided responses to the other elements of the complaint she had raised as follows:
    1. Responses were provided on 10 June 2022 and 26 August 2022 regarding the works to her property. It noted that the issues raised did not mention poor quality work by the contractor and at the inspection conducted on the 15 June 2022 its officer thought that the works of the contractor was satisfactory. It did not uphold that part of the complaint.
    2. It had previously advised the resident that the works at her property were disruptive, could create dust and advised that resources were not available to have a dedicated cleaner attend each property having work done every day. It was unable to comment on the complaint regarding poor attitude as that was not previously reported. As there was no evidence to support that aspect of the complaint and was not raised previously in the correspondence with it, it did not uphold that part of the complaint.
    3. Reports of a fault with the central heating thermostat had not previously been raised as a defect. It had raised works orders to rectify issues, 1 order had passed its target date of 28 June 2023, and it would contact the resident to arrange a new date. The order to repair the extractor fan in bathroom had a target date to complete works of 21 August 2023 so it would be in contact with her to complete that repair. The central heating thermostat could be inspected during the electrical check under that order. It noted that several telephone calls had been made to mobile phone numbers it had on file for her, but the calls had not been answered and the contractor had not received a response to voicemail messages left. As orders had been raised to conduct remedial works, it was unable to uphold that part of her complaint.
    4. Reports of an electrical box earthing fault when an upstairs socket was used had not previously been raised as a defect but could be inspected when the electrician was on site conducting the electrical testing. As an order had been raised to resolve the issue, it did not uphold that part of her complaint.
    5. Regarding reports of delays in responding to the complaint, it understood the resident had raised several complaints. It could see her complaints had been responded to within its published timescales. It did recognise that the response in September 2022 did not set out escalation details, or mention that the response was a stage 1 response. It apologised and upheld that part of her complaint.
    6. It understood that the resident wanted all the faults and repairs to be rectified despite previously indicating that she was content to accept all work, except for the 2 orders raised, as complete. As she had previously indicated that she no longer wanted the original contractor to conduct the works, it would raise an order for the works to be undertaken. Her list of defects was a new list which it had not previously had knowledge of but would work with her to ensure that the defects were rectified.
  29. The landlord’s response that the resident did not raise substandard works by its contractor was not accurate as she raised this with it in her correspondence since April 2022 as this was the basis of her initial concerns. The visit with its officer was also ended before a full inspection of the property could take place and there is no evidence it did read or consider the file she had produced for it regarding the works by the contractor. It was also clear in subsequent correspondence that she said she had other issues to raise with it. This was also the case with her complaint about its contractor failing to clean and tidy up after works and causing issues for her health. That issue was raised by her, and she had questioned the response it issued at stage 1, but she did not receive a further response until the stage 2 was issued.
  30. The landlord stated the resident had said in the meeting on 19 January 2023 that she would accept other issues she had raised as complete as she did not want any further liaison with the contractor. There is no evidence provide by it that this was agreed with her. It is therefore not possible to conclude this statement was accurate especially given she had brought her concerns about the outstanding works to the Ombudsman. It is reminded it needs to keep comprehensive records of repairs request raised to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding during the repairs process.
  31. The landlord stated in relation to the works raised for the thermostat, electric fan, and electric box earthing that as works were raised it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The raising of the works does not constitute completion of its repair obligations. Although it stated there was issues regarding contacting her, it has not evidenced it took sufficient action to address the repairs. The evidence provided also show she challenged it and its contractor about its attempts to contact her. The failure by it or its contractor to complete the works meant the issues remained unresolved for a significant period and therefore was a failing by it that it failed to recognise in its complaint response. It is also noted its repairs records did not show sufficient information such as when and how attempts were made to contact the resident.
  32. Following the stage 2 response on 22 August 2023, the landlord did undertake repairs to the resident’s property. However, its records show that although repairs for electrics were raised on 27 September 2023, further repairs were not raised until 26 October 2023 which were noted as being complaint repairs but provided no further details and this continued the delays since her first report in April 2022. Its repairs records not being clear about the type of repairs raised has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to determine if all the repairs raised by her had been raised by it. Overall, it took a disproportionate amount of time to resolve the repairs for her which would have caused her distress and inconvenience.
  33. The landlord stated to this Service that the repairs were completed in December 2023, but it has not provided a definitive list of repairs that were completed. Given the substantial number of repairs that were raised by the resident during her complaint, an order has been made for it to contact her to ensure there are no outstanding works remaining related to those raised in her complaint.
  34. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the repairs in the resident’s property was inadequate. It has failed to evidence it acted within appropriate timescales when a repair was raised or her concern with the works and actions of its contractor, it failed to consider the actions of the contractor’s works may have had on her vulnerabilities and it failed to suitably ensure contact between her and its contractor was maintained.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord failed to state that it was responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. It also failed to provide her with her rights to escalate the complaint to the next stage of its complaints process.
  2. The resident responded to the landlord on 4 September 2022 and expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. There is no evidence it contacted her to discuss if she wanted to escalate the complaint. This was particularly relevant as the stage 1 response did not provide her with her escalation rights. It missed the opportunity to ensure the resident could progress her complaint if she wished to do so.
  3. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 7 July 2023 after receiving contact from the resident and asked it to respond to her. Although it informed her it would issue a response by 7 August 2023 it was not until 22 August 2023 that it issued its stage 2 response.
  4. The landlord failed to apologise to the resident for its delay in responding to her complaint at stage 2 or evidenced it informed her of the delay. It also referred to the wrong issue date for the stage 1 response. Although it did also acknowledge its failure to provide the escalation information to her in its stage 1 response, it failed to acknowledge that the stage 2 was issued beyond the date it had provided to her and did not offer any redress for the failures. This was service failure by the landlord.

Determination 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about refurbishment works at the property and the subsequent remedial works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. By 7 January 2025, the landlord is to:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a sum of £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling the refurbishment works.
    3. Pay the resident a sum of £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
    4. Contact the resident to establish if all works that were identified as part of her complaint have been addressed, if any works are outstanding, the landlord is to provide the resident with a timetable for those works to be completed.