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

Wandsworth Council (202319783)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319783

Wandsworth Council

5 March 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Request for a repair to her bathroom window.
    2. Reports of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 24 October 2007. The property is a 2 bedroom terraced house. The landlord reports that the resident is hard of hearing and partially sighted. The evidence shows the resident’s son has allergies.
  2. In February 2022 the landlord carried out a mould wash on the bathroom walls. On 19 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report damp in her front room which was spreading. She also reported a crack in her bathroom window. The landlord said it would carry out a survey to inspect the damp and mould. On 28 November 2022 it raised a works order to replace the window.
  3. On 15 March 2023 the resident reported that even though the landlord had installed a new bathroom the damp and mould had reappeared in the same place. The landlord attended the property on 24 May 2023 to carry out a mould wash and apply stain blocker. However, this did not resolve the issue.
  4. The window was reglazed on 17 July 2023. Following its investigation into the cause of damp and mould the landlord carried out repointing and brick work to the external bathroom wall on 25 August 2023.

Complaints process.

  1. On 17 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to make a formal complaint. She had reported the damp and damaged window in October 2022 and was told works orders had been raised. She requested the repairs be completed and compensation paid.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 June 2023, as follows:
    1. It apologised for the inconvenience and delay in addressing the resident’s concerns. The service was not the level it would expect a resident to receive.
    2. It had raised a works order for the window in November 2022. Following recent contact its contractor apologised for the delay in contacting the resident. They said they attended on 24 May 2023 and had ordered the glass which should be ready the following week. They would contact the resident to arrange to complete installation.
    3. It also attended the property on 24 May 2023 to treat the mould. However, it appeared the treatment did not resolve the underlying issue. It understood from feedback there may be an issue with the outer wall causing damp which was “not adequately addressed” during the bathroom renewal.
    4. It had considered requesting the contractor rectify the damp issue as it should have addressed it prior to the bathroom renewal. However, it decided it would resolve the issue itself as it would be quicker. Therefore, it would contact the resident within the next 5 working days to book the inspection.
    5. It “sincerely apologised” for the delays and “miscommunication”. It said it would ensure better coordination and communication between contractors and prioritise completion of the repairs.
    6. It would review the resident’s request for compensation and asked her how she arrived at her figure. It upheld the complaint.
    7. It was arranging meetings with contractors to monitor performance. This would ensure works out of target were picked up sooner and were closely monitored.
  3. On 23 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the level of compensation it subsequently offered was insufficient. She therefore requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  4. On 18 August 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, the main points being:
    1. The repairs were not completed “in good time.”
    2. Its contractor did not action the works order for the bathroom window. When it became aware it arranged for them to attend and measure up on 24 May 2023. The reglaze took place on 17 July 2023. It concluded the repair took “far too long” although its contractor confirmed the window was not a hazard.
    3. The damp issue in the bathroom should have been resolved before it was renewed as part of programmed works. It visited on 24 May 2023 to carry out a mould wash and apply stain blocker.
    4. It suspected there may be an issue with the external wall causing penetrating damp into the bathroom. A specialist contractor checked for plumbing defects but none were found. However, they identified that the external wall needed repointing as this was the cause of water ingress. An order was raised and work completed on 25 August 2023.
    5. It apologised for the “inconvenience and frustration.” There was a delay with the window however, the bathroom was actioned in a reasonable timeframe when it was first reported by the resident. Its stage 2 complaint response was late due to officers being on leave.
    6. It upheld the complaint and increased its offer of compensation to £200 for delayed window repair and stage 2 complaint response.
    7. It said it would learn from the complaint to improve its processes and service provision. It would continue to meet with and monitor the performance of its contractor with a focus on repairs that had exceeded target dates.
  5. On 22 August 2023 the resident emailed us to set out her dissatisfaction with the outcome of the landlord’s complaints process. The complaint became one we can investigate on 6 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

  1. The landlord’s Damp and Mould Procedure says that it:
    1. Will create an urgent service request when it receives a report.
    2. Aims to carry out a mould wash within 48 hours.
    3. Will complete an inspection with the resident within 14 days to establish the cause of the damp and mould. If the damp and mould is being caused by a leak it will take immediate action.
    4. Will complete any necessary repair orders within 21 days.
  2. Its Corporate Complaints Guide (complaints policy) says that it:
    1. Aims to acknowledge complaints within 2 working days.
    2. Will provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.
    3. Will not extend the 25 working day deadline except in exceptional circumstances. In such cases the resident will be kept fully informed of the delay and told when they can expect a response.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to her bathroom window.

  1. On 19 October 2022 the landlord sent an internal email regarding the resident’s report of a cracked bathroom window. The associated works order was raised on 28 November 2022, over a month later. It is unclear why the landlord took so long to raise the repair and therefore the delay was unreasonable.
  2. Furthermore, it caused time and trouble for the resident who emailed the landlord on 1 December 2022 to chase the repair. The landlord replied on 2 December to confirm the works order for the window was raised with a completion date of 28 December 2022.
  3. During an email to the resident of 29 December 2022 the landlord enquired if the works to the window had been carried out. It was positive that it was monitoring progress of the repair. However, the resident replied on the same day to say no one had contacted her.
  4. The landlord did not reply causing the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she chased for a response in her emails of 10 and 27 February and 11 March 2023.
  5. The landlord replied on 15 March 2023 to apologise for the delay in carrying out the repair. It had spoken to the contractor who would contact the resident to make an appointment for the following week. While this was positive it failed to acknowledge that it had taken almost 3 months to provide an update and only after the resident had chased.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 1 June 2023 confirmed that the contractor had attended on 24 May 2023 to measure up. It stage 2 complaint response of 18 August 2023 confirmed that the repair was completed on 17 July 2023. It is unclear why it took 3 months from the date it measured up to complete the repair. Therefore the additional delay was unreasonable.
  7. It took the landlord 9 months from the date it was put on notice to complete the repair. During that time the resident was caused distress and inconvenience chasing the landlord.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 June 2023 to ask it to make an offer of compensation by the end of the day. The landlord replied that day to say the responsible officer was on leave but would reply when he returned week commencing 12 June 2023. The landlord’s response was appropriate in the circumstances.
  9. However, the officer failed to contact the resident causing her distress, time and trouble when she emailed to chase on 19, 22 and 23 June 2023. On 23 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to offer £100 compensation.
  10. The failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The lack of clarity regarding the landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 2 has been set out below. However, for the purposes of this assessment we consider it reasonable to conclude that £150 was awarded for the failures in relation to the window. This is not proportionate to the failures identified in this report.
  11. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £150 it has offered if this has already been paid.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

  1. On 4 February 2022 the landlord carried out a mould wash to the bathroom walls.
  2. An internal email dated 19 October 2022 noted that the resident had provided photographs of damp in her front room. On the same day a works order was appropriately raised to inspect.
  3. On 1 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to follow up on a visit it made the week before. It replied on 2 December 2022 to say it was waiting for advice from the Building Maintenance Inspector. It provided a further update on 8 December 2022 to say it would arrange for a damp survey to take place.
  4. On 21 December 2022 the landlord raised a works order to carry out damp proof course works. In the resident’s email to the landlord of 29 December she confirmed she had been contacted about a potential date for works to be carried out.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 February 2023 to chase its response to the mould and “rising damp” in the living room and bedroom. She said her son suffered from allergies and she was concerned about the impact the damp and mould would have him. The landlord failed to respond which was inappropriate, causing time and trouble to the resident who emailed again on 11 March 2023 to chase.
  6. On 27 March 2023 the landlord raised a works order to carry out a mould wash on the bedroom and living room wall. It was carried out on 16 June 2023. The landlord’s response was inappropriate because it far exceeded the 48 hour response set out in its Damp and Mould Procedure.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 1 June 2023 advised there may be an issue with the outer wall which was not “adequately addressed” during a bathroom renewal and said it would rectify the issue. The response identified failings and said it took “full responsibility” for “failure to provide a satisfactory level of service.”
  8. On 2 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to propose to inspect the outer wall on 22 June 2023. It emailed again on 19 June 2023 and the resident replied on 21 June 2023 to say she had missed its earlier email. In a further email sent that day the landlord confirmed it had raised an order to repoint the brickwork.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 18 August 2023 confirmed there were 2 repairs, the window and damp, which were not completed in “good time.” It also acknowledged that the damp in the bathroom should have been resolved when the bathroom was renewed.
  10. It was therefore confusing that it went onto say the bathroom was actioned in a reasonable timeframe when it was first reported and as such it did not award compensation for its failures.
  11. It took the landlord 10 months to resolve the damp issue which was well outside of the timescales in its Damp and Mould Procedure. It acknowledged that this was an ongoing issue which should have been resolved earlier. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it considered the impact of ongoing damp and mould on the health of the resident and her son who had allergies.
  12. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £300 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

 

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 17 May 2023. The landlord provided its response on 1 June 2023 in line with its complaints policy.
  2. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 23 June 2023. The landlord provided its response on 18 August 2023. This was 41 working days later and 16 days out of time. Furthermore, it failed to inform the resident of the delay and agree a new response date in line with its complaints policy.
  3. The landlord also failed to adhere to its complaints policy because it failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint at both stages.
  4. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to set out in clear, plain language any remedy offered to put right a failing. At stage 1 the landlord offered £100 for “the delay.” It identified failings in response to the window and damp. It is unclear how much compensation was apportioned to each failure. At stage 2 the landlord increased its offer to £200 but advised this was in relation to the window and its delayed complaint response only.
  5. The landlord’s handling of compensation was confusing. It is not clear how much was apportioned to which failure therefore it is difficult to assess how much it offered for the delayed complaint response. However, this investigation considers it reasonable to conclude a minimum of £50 was offered.
  6. The timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy dated April 2023 do not comply with the Code which requires a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
  7. This was inappropriate because it delayed completion of its internal complaints process. The complaints policy on its website dated March 2024 is compliant with the Code therefore it has not been necessary to make an order on this matter.
  8. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to her bathroom window.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £650 compensation comprised of:
      1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s request for a repair to her bathroom window. The landlord may deduct the £150 it has offered if this has already been paid.
      2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
      3. £100 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.