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

Wandsworth Council (202343422)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343422

Wandsworth Council

9 December 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 water leaking into the resident’s property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a one bedroom second floor flat. The resident has physical disabilities and hearing problems. The landlord had some of these vulnerabilities recorded, but not all.
  2. On 15 September 2023, the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. He said his property had flooded overnight, which was the second time this had happened in 10 months, and the sixth time in 8 years. The resident said his bedroom was “uninhabitable” as the mattress was soaked, and the water was still dripping through the ceiling. He was told at 3:10am that it was too late to arrange emergency accommodation and to call in the morning.
  3. The resident also said he was exhausted and fed up with having to repeat himself as he was flooded in November 2022 by sewage. The resident said nobody attended to assess the damage from the leak in 2022, despite 2 appointments being booked. He wanted the repairs from both leaks carried out and a carpet cleaner to be able to clean his bedroom carpet. The resident said he was disabled and listed medical conditions including being deaf in both ears, having arthritis, an inoperable trapped nerve, and awaiting a knee replacement.
  4. The landlord did not process the resident’s complaint through its complaint procedure. It said it would respond at a service level because it could address the repairs quicker through a standard response. The landlord said that, when the resident received the response, if he remained unhappy, he could pursue his complaint through the complaint procedure. The standard response was issued on 27 September 2023. It advised the resident that it was unfortunate an inspection did not take place after the leak in November 2022 and said it had booked an inspection for 3 October 2023. The landlord stated it was not responsible for the resident’s personal belongings, and he should contact his contents insurance provider.
  5. On 21 November 2023, the resident asked for his complaint to be progressed. The resident said the landlord had not addressed all the issues he had raised. He was concerned that he had potentially been exposed to asbestos due to the damage caused by the water leaking into the bedroom. The resident said the landlord had stated an asbestos test needed to be carried out on the ceiling before repair work could start but this had not happened. He said he did not have contents insurance as he could not afford it. The resident was unhappy about the lack of support and assistance he had received as a disabled person to deal with the incidents of water leaks. He said there was “indifference” by the landlord when dealing with disabled people.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 December 2023. It said the water leak the resident experienced in November 2022 was caused by a leak in the main stack pipe that served the block and affected the resident’s bedroom. The landlord said it had problems gaining access to another tenant’s property to resolve the leak but that once it got access it had repaired the leak as quickly as possible. It confirmed 2 appointments had been booked to inspect the resident’s property but one was rearranged by the landlord and the second was cancelled by the resident. The landlord said it was unfortunate that the inspection did not go ahead. It acknowledged it should have followed up to make sure the inspection was carried out, but noted the resident had the opportunity to make contact but did not.
  7. The landlord said the second instance of water leaking in the evening of 14 September 2023 was caused by the neighbours in the property above overfilling their bath. When the problem was reported, the landlord said it attended, along with an electrician. The landlord said the resident was advised at 3am on 15 September 2023 that it was too late for emergency accommodation to be arranged and to contact it in the morning. Its records showed the resident rang at 8:34am on 15 September 2023 and was told to contact the landlord after 9am. The landlord said there was no record of the resident calling after 9am. It said the resident had completed an online form at 10:03am but had not requested alternative accommodation on that form. The landlord said it had tried to contact the resident on receipt of the online form, but the resident advised on a later date that he had been unable to answer the calls.
  8. On 27 September 2023, the landlord had spoken to the resident, and it said he did not suggest alternative accommodation was needed. An inspection was arranged for 3 October 2023. At the inspection the landlord had advised it would carry out the work required to remedy the damage to the property, but it said the resident did not want it to raise the work orders as he wanted to make a complaint. As a result, the only work order raised was for an electrician to attend to ensure the electrics were safe. The landlord partially upheld the complaint as it stated it should have followed up on the water leak reported in November 2022. It said the resident should make contact if he wished for the work orders to be raised to remedy the damage to the property.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint on 29 December 2023. He said the landlord’s response inferred he had been obstructive to resolving the situation, which he disagreed with. The resident said there was no coherent policy on assisting disabled, elderly, or vulnerable people to access services when flooding occurs. He said residents are left to deal with it themselves with no assistance. The resident said he physically could not continue to clear up after floods without assistance due to ongoing health issues. He said he was frustrated by the landlord and had no faith in its ability to support vulnerable residents.
  10. On 22 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. The landlord changed its position regarding the water leak in November 2022. It acknowledged it should have arranged the inspection, and that this was not for the resident to initiate. With regards to temporary accommodation after the water leak in September 2023, the landlord said the resident did not contact it, as instructed to by it. The landlord said the resident also did not mention temporary accommodation in his online form submitted later that day or at any other time up to 17 September 2023, which it said was the date the resident advised he would have no longer needed it. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It said the resident could contact it if he wanted any damage caused by water leaks to be remedied.
  11. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 28 February 2024 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He said he was unable to use part of his bedroom and some of his electrical items due to water damage. The resident said his bathroom and hallway walls were damaged and stained. He said there was damage to the bathroom tiles and the hallway and bedroom carpets. The resident said there had been no follow up or assistance given. He said the onus was always on the tenant and he was exhausted by the number of emails and calls he has had to make. The resident wanted the repairs carried out and his electrical items safety tested and replaced if damaged. He said he wanted the landlord to have a policy and system in place to assist disabled residents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s landlord is a local council. Where a council is concerned, under paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints that relate to its management and provision of social housing. We cannot assess the actions of other functions and services that councils provide such as environmental health, social services, and local councillors. These services are provided as part of the local council’s wider obligations and fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This investigation will only look at the local council’s role as a landlord.
  2. The resident told the Ombudsman that the flooding of his property had affected his health and belongings. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these health and other problems, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on damages to the household’s health or belongings. Such matters are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine under paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme. Therefore, the landlord has been recommended below to provide the resident with details to allow him to make a liability claim to it or its insurers for the damages he reported. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance.

Water leaks

  1. The landlord’s tenancy conditions states, “We are responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of your home, including windows, and we have to keep the installations in the property for gas, electricity and water supplies, heating and hot water, in good repair and working order”.
  2. Under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord also has repair obligations. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  3. In November 2022, the leak was caused by a leak in the main stack pipe serving the block. There was a delay in the landlord being able to address the leak due to having problems gaining access to another property in the block. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that once access was gained the repairs were carried out “as quickly as possible”. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the work orders for this repair, so was unable to establish how long it took for the landlord to repair the leak. The resident stated in his initial complaint dated 15 September 2023 that his flat was affected for 5 days and that the contents of the leaking pipe was “human effluence”.
  4. The evidence showed that 2 property inspections were scheduled after the water leak in November 2022. However, neither of these inspections went ahead. The first was rearranged by the landlord and the second was cancelled by the resident as he had a hospital appointment. The inspection did not occur. In both its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged it should have done more to follow up on the inspection after the water leak in November 2022. In its stage 1 response, the landlord also noted the resident could have followed up on the matter himself. However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord revised its opinion and stated it was responsible for arranging the inspection and it should have followed up after the previous appointments did not go ahead. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failing regarding the handling of the water leak at the resident’s property in November 2022.
  5. When water leaks occurred at the resident’s property on the evening of 14 September 2023, the landlord was aware as it had attended the property twice, once in the late evening and once in the early hours of the morning. The visit logs stated the property had “very bad ingress” and listed some of the damage. Despite this, the landlord’s stage 2 response said the resident was contacted about the matter because of an online form he submitted that morning. It was appropriate that the landlord contacted the resident in response to his online form. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have proactively initiated contact with the resident in response to the overnight reports, especially due to the damage reported.
  6. The evidence showed the landlord attempted to call the resident twice on 15 September 2023. However, there was no evidence to show the landlord continued to try to contact the resident when he did not answer on that date. An internal email dated 19 September 2023 requested somebody call the resident, but there was no evidence to show this call was made. Both the landlord’s complaint responses stated that, after 15 September 2023, the resident was next contacted on 27 September 2023. This was not a timely follow up on the previous attempt to contact the resident and was inappropriate, as the landlord was aware the resident’s property had experienced “very bad ingress” and that there was damage as a result.
  7. During the landlord’s telephone call with the resident on 27 September 2023, an inspection was arranged for 3 October 2023, which was 19 calendar days after the water leak occurred. This was not appropriate or a timely response, especially as the resident had contacted the landlord about the water leak on 15 September 2023, and his reports would have been substantiated by the incident visit logs. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the inspection report, so was unable to establish the extent of the damage. However, both the landlord’s complaint responses referenced that remedial work was identified.
  8. The Ombudsman has also not been provided with any details of work orders, but the stage 1 complaint stated a work order for an electrician to attend was raised as a result of the inspection on 3 October 2023. The Ombudsman was unable to establish if this appointment was attended to in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, as we have not seen evidence of when this appointment occurred.
  9. Both the landlord’s complaint responses referred to other remedial works being identified during the inspection on 3 October 2023. However, the landlord stated in its complaint responses that the resident did not want these works raised as he wanted to make a complaint. The resident stated in his escalation email that the reason he wanted to delay the repairs was because, as he did not have contents insurance, he was considering getting a claim to be assessed by a solicitor for damages.
  10. While the resident may have thought this was necessary, any delay to the landlord carrying out the non-essential remedial work due to the resident requesting it be postponed was reasonable. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have followed up with the resident to progress the repairs. There was no evidence to show the landlord did this, and it was not until the stage 1 response on 4 December 2023 that the landlord referenced the repairs again.
  11. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not accepted responsibility for the damage to his personal property due to the water leaks of November 2022 and September 2023. The landlord had said it was not responsible for the resident’s personal property and had signposted him to his contents insurance provider. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s tenancy conditions which state, “We will insure the structure of the building against certain risks, together with our fixtures and fittings, but we are unable to insure your furniture and possessions. You should seek advice from an insurance broker or insurance company about the best insurance cover for your needs”. This was also in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on this matter. However, it would have been preferable for the landlord to also tell the resident how to make a liability claim to it, so this is recommended below.
  12. In the resident’s complaint and escalation emails he was unhappy that he was not given temporary accommodation after the water leak in September 2023. The resident said in his escalation email of 29 December 2023 that he had needed this between 14 and 17 September 2023 while his mattress dried out. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the resident had requested alternative accommodation on the night of the incident but as it was 3am it was too late to arrange this.
  13. The resident was advised to contact the landlord in the morning. When the resident rang at 8:34am that morning, he was told to ring the landlord after 9am. The landlord said there was no record of him contacting it after 9am as advised. It said when the resident submitted his online form about the incident at 10:03am on 15 September 2023 that he did not request alternative accommodation. As the resident had been appropriately signposted, the landlord’s response to this matter was appropriate.
  14. However, as identified earlier in this report, the landlord did not continue to try to contact the resident after he missed the landlord’s calls on 15 September 2023. The landlord next attempted to contact the resident on 27 September 2023. Therefore, by not speaking to the resident sooner, this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to evaluate the resident’s need for alternative accommodation. By the time the landlord spoke to the resident on 27 September 2023, the resident no longer needed the alternative accommodation.
  15. In both the landlord’s complaint responses, the remedy offered was for the resident to contact the landlord to arrange the repairs. This placed the onus on the resident to action the remedy offer, which was not appropriate. Given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged to contact the resident about the outstanding repairs and take the required action.
  16. The resident repeatedly advised the landlord of his health conditions and the effect these had on his ability to deal with water leaks. There was no evidence to show the landlord had taken these vulnerabilities into account when responding to the resident’s reports of water leaks. On 15 October 2024, when providing the Ombudsman with the evidence for this investigation, the landlord acknowledged it did not have all the vulnerabilities recorded that the resident had declared during the complaint procedure. The landlord said a notification would be added to the landlord’s housing management system to ensure its staff are aware of the vulnerabilities the resident had declared. This was an appropriate response to identifying that the records were not up to date. However, this should have been addressed when the resident disclosed the information, not in October 2024 because of an evidence request from the Ombudsman.
  17. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of water leaking into the resident’s property. This was because an inspection was not carried out after the stack pipe leaked into the resident’s property in November 2022. The landlord was not proactive in organising an inspection when the water leak occurred in September 2023, despite the incident visit logs stating there had been “very bad ingress” and reported damage to the property. The landlord also placed the onus on the resident to action the remedy offer in both its responses.
  18. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award the resident £350 compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which recommends awards in this range to recognise failures by the landlord that adversely affected the resident. The landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection of the property and carry out the remedial work, as well as to give the resident a point of contact for this. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made his initial stage 1 complaint on 15 September 2023. He had used a “make a complaint” form and throughout the form it was very evident he was making a complaint. Despite this, the landlord replied on the same date to say it was going to respond to the resident’s complaint at service level and provide “a standard response”. The landlord did not give any indication of how long it would take for it to provide a standard response. It said if the resident was not happy with the response when he received it, it could then be dealt with via the formal complaints process. This was inappropriate, as it was not a service request but very clearly a complaint. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy which states, “Our Corporate complaints procedure has two stages. If you can’t resolve the problem locally (within a day or two) or it is clear that the customer wishes to make a formal complaint, the matter should proceed to a formal complaint at stage 1”.
  2. This was also not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The resident’s correspondence should have been logged as a formal complaint given that the resident had clearly expressed his dissatisfaction. As per the Code, “the resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such”. The evidence showed that there was a clear failure to recognise this and, as a result, an informal landlord response was sent to the resident on 27 September 2023.
  3. On 16 November 2023, the resident chased up a formal response to his complaint. He highlighted that the landlord had not dealt with his complaint in line with its complaint procedure. The landlord directed the resident back to its informal response. It said this response had addressed the points he had raised and suggested the resident contact the senior estate manager if the inspection had not gone ahead as planned. This was not appropriate or fair. It was only when the resident sent another email on 21 November 2023 stating he wanted his complaint raised to the next level, or to the Ombudsman, that the landlord escalated his complaint.
  4. The resident received a stage 1 response on 4 December 2023 which was 56 working days after he had initially made his complaint on 15 September 2023. As the landlord did not correctly issue a stage 1 response when the resident initially complained, the resident was delayed in being able to progress his complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, he was also delayed in being able to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman.
  5. The Code states that “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate”.
  6. In the resident’s complaint dated 21 November 2023 and escalation email of 29 December 2023, he expressed his dissatisfaction at the lack of support he received as a disabled person when he experienced the incidents of water leaks. The resident said the landlord did not have a coherent policy on assisting disabled, elderly, or vulnerable people when flooding occurs. He stated residents are left to deal with it with no assistance. Despite the resident raising these concerns in both his complaint and escalation, the landlord did not address these points in either of its complaint responses. This was not appropriate and not in line with the Code. The landlord not addressing the resident’s concerns about assistance offered to vulnerable residents when water leaks occur delayed the resident getting a resolution to this matter. It also meant the resident was unable to refer this matter to the Ombudsman, as it had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  7. The resident had raised concerns about asbestos exposure in his complaint dated 21 November 2023. He said his bedroom ceiling had been damaged by the water leak. The resident said he had been advised by the landlord that the ceiling needed testing for asbestos before remedial work could begin. He felt the landlord had shown no concern that this could be a potential danger to him, and it had not yet been tested despite it being over a year since the damage occurred. The landlord did not address this matter in either of its complaint responses. This was not appropriate and not in line with the Code. As referenced above, not addressing this aspect of the resident’s complaint delayed the resident getting a resolution to this matter. It also meant the resident was unable to refer this matter to the Ombudsman, as it had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  8. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This was because the landlord did not deal with the resident’s initial complaint in line with its policy or the Code. It also did not address 2 key complaint points about vulnerable residents and asbestos that the resident had raised in his complaints. The landlord’s complaint handling failures meant the resident was delayed in bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman. He was also unable to refer some matters to the Ombudsman, as they had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  9. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award £150 for its complaints handling in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards in this range for failures that adversely affected the resident. The landlord is ordered to carry out an asbestos test of the bedroom. It is ordered to meet with the resident to create an action plan should the resident encounter any further incidents of water leaks, taking into account any vulnerabilities the resident may have to ensure the appropriate level of support is in place. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right. The landlord is also recommended to follow our dispute resolution principle to learn from the outcome of its poor complaint handling in the resident’s case by reminding its staff to log stage 1 complaints and address all the points raised in them.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of water leaking into the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident total compensation of £500. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to his rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 6 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to the Ombudsman. The compensation is comprised of:
      1. £350 in respect of the landlord’s handling of water leaking into the resident’s property.
      2. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    2. Contact the resident and arrange to carry out an inspection of the property within 6 weeks of the date of this report. A copy of the inspection report must be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
    3. Prior to undertaking any repairs, carry out an asbestos test of the bedroom. A copy of the asbestos report must be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
    4. All recommended works identified in the inspection report must be completed within 6 weeks of the date of this report. This must be evidenced to the Ombudsman by the landlord submitting the completed work orders detailing the work carried out within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
    5. Once all the recommended repair work is completed, redecorate all rooms, including the hallway, that have been affected by water leaks. This work must be completed within 6 weeks of the date of this report. This must be evidenced to the Ombudsman by the landlord submitting the completed work orders detailing the work carried out within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
    6. Allocate one named staff member to be the point of contact for the resident regarding the inspection and repairs. This staff member must coordinate the work to ensure there is minimal disruption to the resident and to ensure the resident is kept up to date. The landlord must email the resident the contact details of this named staff member and their working hours within 6 weeks of the date of this report. This must be evidenced by sending the Ombudsman a copy of the email it has sent the resident within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
    7. Meet with the resident to create an action plan should the resident encounter any further incidents of water leaks, taking into account any vulnerabilities the resident may have to ensure the appropriate level of support is in place. A copy of this action plan should be sent to the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord:
    1. Remind all complaint handling staff that they must log all housing complaints at stage 1 and address all points raised in residents’ complaints, in line with the Code.
    2. Provide the resident with details to allow him to make a liability claim to it or its insurers for the damages he reported.