Watford Community Housing Trust (202205875)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205875

Watford Community Housing Trust

31 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Requests for repairs.
2. Concerns regarding staff conduct.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since July 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident told the landlord that she is disabled and vulnerable. She also advised she lives with learning difficulties, depression and anxiety.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 September 2021 about cracks in the vinyl tiles in her property. An operative visited on 1 December 2021 to inspect the tiles. On 14 June 2022, the landlord told the resident the tiles would not be repaired as the damage was minor. It said if the damage became worse over time it could return to re-assess the tiles. The resident responded the same day. She said she was not happy and found it unacceptable that the landlord had refused to repair the damage to her floor. She said that it had a duty of care towards her and that by law it had to conduct repairs.
The resident contacted us on 24 June 2022 to report that the landlord had refused to conduct repairs in her property. We advised the resident how to progress her complaint with the landlord. After further communications with her, we wrote to the landlord on 10 October 2022 and asked it to provide a stage 1 response. On 14 October 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that, in line with its customer feedback policy, the first report of a repair would not be considered as a stage 1 complaint. It had therefore logged the resident’s communication as feedback. It said if she remained dissatisfied following the repairs, she could raise a complaint.
After further requests from the Ombudsman, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 June 2023. It said:
1. It offered sincere apologies for the delay in completing the repair of the living room floor tiles. It had had difficulty finding tiles to match the ones that were in place.
2. On 16 March 2023 an operative had attended and removed one of the cracked tiles to use as a sample to order a direct replacement. An order had then been placed with its preferred supplier, which had later advised it could not source the same tile.
3. On 2 June 2023 an operative had attended the resident’s property and confirmed another tile it had sourced matched those in the property. It had ordered the tiles and scheduled their replacement for 23 June 2023.
4. It apologised for its lack of communication regarding the repairs to the floor tiles. It acknowledged that it should have kept the resident updated on the supply issues and discussed alternative solutions more quickly.
5. It listed several other repairs the resident had highlighted during a visit it had made on 26 May 2023, and gave appointment times and dates for these to be rectified.
6. It had reviewed the email communications between its staff and the resident and had found them to be fair and professional. It apologised if any of the emails had caused distress or inconvenience.
7. Due to the volume of emails sent by the resident, it was not possible for it to respond to them all.
8. Several of the emails received gave rise to concerns about the resident’s health. It was keen to support her and could assist with referrals to supporting agencies on her behalf. It asked that she contact it if she was open to this suggestion.
9. It asked the resident what, in her opinion, would be a fair way to resolve her concerns.
The resident stated that she was unhappy with the stage 1 response and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint in emails on 6 and 8 June 2023. She said:
1. She would not allow access for the repair on 28 June 2023 as it was common knowledge that a water stain could not be painted over. Doing so would result in a sub-standard repair.
2. The landlord had not conducted an inspection to discover where the leak had come from.
3. She felt the landlord had made “funny remarks” about her GP and was not happy with its attitude and uncaring remarks about her depression in its stage 1 response.
4. The landlord had exhibited threatening, rude and bullying behaviour toward her.
5. The landlord had lied in a warning letter that was sent to her by email.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 June 2023. It advised her it was not refusing to escalate her complaint. It said it had asked her to provide reasons why she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and how it could resolve her complaint. It noted that this request and process was in line with its customer feedback policy.
The landlord issued a complaint closing letter on 24 August 2023. It confirmed it had received the resident’s emails on 6 and 8 June 2023 advising she wished to escalate her complaint. It said it had written to her on 9 June 2023 asking for further detail on the reasons she was unhappy with the stage 1 response and how she felt the situation could be resolved. As it had not received a response to that email, it had now closed the complaint. It then said that all reported repairs relating to the complaint had been completed. It again offered to assist with referrals to supporting agencies due to concerns with the resident’s health and asked that she get in touch if she was open to the offer.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs

Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, it is the landlord’s statutory responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in good repair.
The landlord’s repairs policy classes routine repairs as those which do not pose an imminent threat to the customer, their possessions or property. There is no information within the document to clarify when or if the landlord can refuse a repair where it is minor. The policy states that routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s goodwill gesture policy allows it to pay an award of compensation for “general inconvenience during an incident”. The policy does not list any payment guidelines. All cases are judged on a case-by-case basis. When considering amounts to be awarded, the landlord will take into account the severity of the situation and the overall time involved. Any amount awarded is in recognition of the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by the circumstances of their complaint.
The landlord’s records indicate the resident first contacted it about her tiles on 10 September 2021. It then raised a job to inspect the property on 26 November 2021,56 working days later. This was an unreasonable delay and outside the landlord’s timescales for a routine repair. The operative who visited on 26 November 2022 recorded a no access visit. This was disputed by the resident, who said that nobody had come to the property. The landlord raised what it called a pre-complaint “grumble”. However, there are no records to show if it investigated the disputed visit or communicated with the resident about it, which was unfair. This meant it missed an opportunity to fully understand and address her concerns.
An operative then visited the property on 1 December 2021. They took a number of photographs and noted that there were hairline cracks in the tiles, but there was no trip hazard. There is no evidence to show the resident was informed of the outcome of the inspection or what the next steps were. This was unsatisfactory and indicates a failure in communication, record keeping, or both. Not providing the resident with this information would likely have caused her frustration and uncertainty.
The landlord did not contact the resident again about the tiles until 6 months later on 14 June 2022. This significant timeframe was unacceptable and unfair to the resident. In its email, the landlord said that the damage was minor and that it would not conduct a repair. Frustrated by its decision, the resident responded the same day stating that it had a duty of care towards her and that by law it had to conduct repairs. Unreasonably, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s email. She contacted it again on 21 June 2022. She said it was not acceptable that the landlord refused to repair the damage to the floor. She said it needed to be repaired and should be repaired. Again, the landlord did not respond. This was further evidence of poor communication, leaving the resident feeling unheard and ignored and increasing her frustration with the process.
The resident contacted this Service in July 2022 and October 2022 about the cracks in the tiles and a leak staining her kitchen ceiling. She said the landlord was refusing to conduct the required repairs. We informed the landlord on 10 October 2022. It then wrote to the resident on 14 October 2022. It said because she had raised a further concern it had arranged for an inspection of the tiles on 17 October 2022. Our involvement should not have been required to prompt the landlord to carry out appropriate investigation in response to the resident’s report.
In the same email, the landlord told the resident it had not previously been aware of the issues with the ceiling until we had informed it. This was not correct. The landlord’s repair record entry for 25 August 2022 states “trace/repair leak from roof going into flat through kitchen ceiling”. This was a further indication of the landlord not adequately communicating about repairs and failing to conduct a repair within the timescales outlined in its repairs policy.
The landlord recorded 2 no access appointments on 17 October 2022 and 11 November 2022. On the day of the second appointment, the resident told it that she felt let down. She said it had missed 4 appointments and not apologised. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her comments about the no access appointments. The evidence shows that it was receiving significant levels of contact from the resident, some of which it deemed inappropriate. It was appropriately dealing with this through its unreasonable behaviour policy and had correctly communicated this to her on several occasions. However, despite the challenges it was facing, the landlord should have responded to the resident about the no access appointments. In not doing so it failed to present its own evidence to her. It also missed an opportunity to understand why the appointments were being missed and explore alternative communication methods to avoid further access issues.
An operative attended the property on 14 November 2022 and applied stain block to the ceiling. The notes do not indicate what had caused the leak or if any repairs had been carried out. It would have been helpful for the resident to have been updated on the repair and the landlord’s findings, but there is nothing in the records to show this happened. It is reasonable to conclude that improved and comprehensive record keeping would have improved the landlord’s handling of the resident’s case.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 7 January 2023 to inspect the tiles. It then visited again on 16 March 2023 to remove a tile to use as a sample. Throughout this 2–month period the landlord did not communicate with the resident regarding its actions or the delays, which was unreasonable. After its visit in March 2023, the landlord said it ordered the tiles with its preferred supplier, which later advised it could not source them. Again, the landlord did not communicate these facts to the resident, which was unacceptable and would have caused further uncertainty.
In addition, it is not clear why the landlord had changed its position and decided to replace the tiles. There had been no change in the condition or any worsening of damage. It would therefore seem that its initial refusal to conduct the repair was unreasonable. While it is acceptable for the landlord to change its decision in relation to the repair, it should have clearly detailed the reasons for this change and explained it to the resident. Not doing so raised questions regarding the basis for the initial decision.
On 2 June 2023, an operative attended the resident’s property to confirm a tile it had sourced matched those in the property. Again, landlord did not contact the resident to explain its actions or provide reasons for the delay that had occurred since the March 2023 visit. This was further evidence of poor communication, which would have been frustrating for the resident. The repair to the tiles was completed on 23 June 2023. This was 21 months after the resident first raised the repair. We find the length of this delay to be excessive.
We have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs. Throughout the timeline of the repair, its communication with her was poor. Its failure to respond to the resident’s communications in June 2022 led to her having to contact this Service. This caused her unnecessary time and trouble. The landlord did not communicate regarding the extensive and ongoing delays or provide updates on its actions, which was unreasonable. Further, the reversal of its decision to replace the tiles called into question the reasonableness of its initial decision and the subsequent delay. Overall, the timescales involved were significantly outside the 20 working days for a routine repair cited in the landlord’s policy. This led to unnecessary distress, inconvenience and frustration for the resident.
As a result of our findings, we have made an award of £200 compensation. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance recommends awards of this level where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Staff conduct

The resident expressed dissatisfaction in relation to the landlord’s staff conduct at her property, over the phone and in its offices. It is not the role of this Service to form a view on whether a staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate or inappropriate. Instead, we will consider whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available. For example, the landlord would generally be expected to conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings. In cases of staff conduct complaints, a landlord should carry out an independent investigation so that it can reach an informed, fair and reasonable decision on the complaint raised.
The resident has made multiple negative comments to the landlord about it and members of its staff. While many of these comments have been general, several have related to specific times, phone calls and visits. These incidents have been actioned by the landlord through its unreasonable behaviour policy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 October 2022 after a visit to its offices. She said she had experienced abuse and bullying behaviour by a staff member on the reception desk. She sent 7 further emails between 19 and 30 October, 5 of which were on 28 October 2022. In her emails the resident said the landlord’s actions were causing her alarm and distress. She said the behaviour was abusive and threatening. She also said she had experienced rudeness and bullying over the phone on 28 October 2022.
The landlord responded on 1 November 2022. It referred to the same incidents and issued the resident with a warning letter for the verbal abuse of its staff. It also informed her in the letter that her behaviour was in breach of her tenancy agreement.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaints about her reports of staff conduct issues on the dates in question. It also did not show that it undertook any investigation into her reports by either listening to the phone calls or speaking to the staff members involved. Rather, the landlord responded with what the resident perceived as a retaliatory letter without any indication that her concerns had been received, considered or investigated. While the landlord may have been justified in issuing the warning letter, it did not show that its approach was balanced or that it had considered the conduct of both parties, which was unfair.
Between 12 April 2023 and 11 May 2023, the resident sent the landlord 11 emails alleging abuse and bullying tactics that caused her alarm and distress. There is no indication the landlord investigated or responded to these claims. We have already acknowledged the challenging amount of communication it was receiving from the resident. However, it was still important that the landlord investigated the claims and presented its findings. The findings were equally important whether they supported or disproved the resident’s allegations. If the landlord found the allegations to be baseless, this would have provided an opportunity for it to clarify to the resident what was and was not acceptable behaviour. It also could have outlined any actions it would consider if it found future baseless allegations.
On 18 May 2023 we wrote to the landlord at the request of the resident in relation to its refusal to accept her complaint. The complaint points we listed included staff conduct, ongoing repairs, and the landlord’s refusal to conduct repairs. In its complaint acknowledgement on 23 May 2023 the landlord listed the repair and communication elements of the complaint but omitted any detail about staff conduct. Even though it later referred to this aspect in the stage 1 response, omitting staff conduct from the acknowledgement letter was unfair. It would likely have left the resident feeling her complaint was not going to be fully investigated.
On 26 May 2023, 2 members of the landlord’s staff visited the resident at her property. In an email on 28 May 2022, she alleged that one of the staff members had called her a “nutcase”. On 30 May 2023, the staff member involved responded strenuously denying the allegation. However, the resident persisted, stating “staff should not be rude behind residents backs thinking they don’t hear” and “she [the resident] was no liar and she knew what was said when the staff member visited”.
The resident’s allegation was a serious one, and regardless of past behaviour or previous allegations, it should have been investigated objectively by someone independent from the visit. The landlord has not demonstrated that it did investigate the resident’s allegation. Neither did it provide a response specific to the incident. This was unfair and would have caused the resident to doubt the integrity of the landlord’s processes.
As previously stated, our role is not to confirm whether the resident’s allegations are substantiated. The evidence provided to us neither confirms nor disproves the allegations. What the evidence does show is that the landlord did not investigate the specific incidents the resident raised or provide an adequate response to her about the allegations. For this reason, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
As a result of our findings, we have made an award of £200 compensation. As above, this amount is in line with our remedies guidance. The remedies guidance recommends awards of this level where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint the landlord had a 2-stage complaints procedure. The procedure also had a pre–complaint stage, named “grumble”. A customer could submit a grumble where they did not wish to go through the full complaint procedure. The policy states “where a customer submits a grumble, we will log their feedback and respond within 3 working days”.
In the policy a complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” This definition comes from the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’).
As examples of complaints, the landlord lists the following:
1. Failure to provide a service in accordance with its policies or service standards.
2. Unacceptable quality of work or service.
3. Delays in responding to an enquiry, providing a service, or completing work.
4. Unacceptable behaviour or attitude of a staff member or contractor.
The policy also lists a number of types of communication which it will not accept as a complaint. These include a first request for a service (eg a repair) and general follow-up enquiries about the status of that request.
The policy states the landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 1 working day and provide a response within 10 working days. If residents are unhappy with the stage 1 response, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. The policy states that the landlord reserves the right to refuse an escalation request where:
1. The appeal is not sufficiently detailed or clear.
2. No new evidence has been submitted (beyond that already considered).
On 14 June 2022, the resident told the landlord that she was not happy and that it was not acceptable that it refused to repair the damage to her floor. In line with the Code and the landlord’s policy, this was an expression of dissatisfaction and should have been accepted as a complaint. However, the landlord did not respond to this until we contacted it on 10 October 2022 and asked it to provide a response by 24 October 2022. This was unsatisfactory.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 October 2022. It said that, as per its customer feedback policy, first reports of repairs would not be considered as a stage 1 complaint. It went on to say it had logged the resident’s concern as “feedback” (a grumble).
The landlord’s use of its grumble procedure was concerning. As quoted above, it states it logged the resident’s communication as feedback. In a later letter to us on 3 October 2023, explaining why it did not raise a complaint, it said the first contact with the resident was managed through the grumble process. The procedure surrounding grumbles states, “a customer could submit a grumble where they did not wish to go through the full complaints process”. This indicates that it is the resident who chooses whether to submit a grumble or a complaint, not the landlord. However, as required by the Code, the landlord has not shown any evidence that it consulted the resident or took her opinions on board and adequately recorded that information. The use of the grumble process was therefore inappropriate given the circumstances of the case and blocked the resident from making a formal complaint.
The records and evidence provided by the landlord list 1 grumble associated with the complaint. This was raised on 26 November 2021 after the disputed no access visit. It is unclear if this is the grumble associated with the resident’s first contact or if it was directly related to the no access visit. As only 1 grumble process was listed in relation to the repairs, and it was not raised on the first contact in September 2021, it has been difficult to corroborate the landlord’s timeline and stated actions. Further, the policy states that a response to a grumble will be provided within 3 working days. The landlord has not shown this happened, which is a failure.
The resident’s first report of the repairs to the tiles had been on 10 September 2021, not in June 2022. The landlord unreasonably took 6 months, after its inspection in December 2021, to inform her that it would not be conducting the repairs. This led to the resident reporting her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision. It had also failed to respond to her reports of a leak affecting her ceiling. All these factors were sufficient grounds for a complaint. The landlord’s decision to refuse to raise a stage 1 complaint was unreasonable and a failure to comply with the Code and its own policy. It also led to significant delays, causing the resident frustration as well as time and trouble chasing the complaint.
After a further request from the Ombudsman on 18 May 2023, the landlord raised a complaint and sent an acknowledgement email to the resident on 23 May 2023. It issued its stage 1 response on 6 June 2023. Both the acknowledgement letter and stage 1 response were marginally outside the time limits in the landlord’s policy. The minor delay in this instance did not cause any adverse impact.
As previously mentioned, the resident alleged that staff had called her a “nutcase” during the visit on 26 May 2023. She sent an email on 2 June 2023 referring to this visit, which was marked “stage 1 complaint”. In the email she named a member of staff and alleged that person had “abused her” and told “lies” in an email, as well as being rude to her when they had come to her home. The Code states, “where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant and the stage one response has not been issued”. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to have included this incident in its investigation. Referring to staff conduct in the stage 1 response, the landlord advised it had reviewed email contact between the parties. It did not refer to the visit on 26 May 2023 or conversations with the staff involved. The absence of this information is evidence that it did not include the specific incident in its investigation. Not considering it was unfair on the resident and a failure to comply with the Code.
There is also no evidence that the landlord raised an additional complaint to deal with this incident at a later point. Due to the seriousness of the allegation, we have made an order for the landlord to contact the resident to ask if she wishes to pursue the incident through the landlord’s complaint procedure. She may subsequently refer this matter to our Service for investigation if she is dissatisfied with the final response.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for its delays and poor communication associated with the tiles. However, it did not offer any compensation. The delays involved were substantial and the absence of updates caused the resident obvious distress and inconvenience. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to have awarded her compensation. In not doing so, it failed to put things right for the resident.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 6 and 8 June 2023. In her emails she listed several reasons for her escalation request. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 June 2023 in response to one of her escalation points regarding the water leak and painting. This was confusing, as its reply should have been in the form of a stage 2 response rather than an informal email.
The landlord then wrote to the resident again on 9 June 2023. It said it was not refusing to escalate her complaint and went on to ask her to provide reasons why she would like to escalate the complaint. This was unfair, as she had already provided a number of reasons that were valid. In addition, in her escalation points she referred to harassment and bullying as well as lies in a warning letter. None of these points been included in the stage 1 response, but they had been raised with the landlord previously, which was a further valid reason for escalating the complaint.
The landlord told this Service it did not escalate the complaint because the resident had not responded to its email on 9 June 2023. We find the landlord’s approach to the resident’s escalation request unreasonable. She had provided sufficient reasons, which it refused to consider.
Further, the staff members involved in deciding whether the resident’s complaint should be escalated were both present at the visit where she alleged that she was called a “nutcase”. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this created a conflict of interest. The Code states that the complaint handler must have no conflict of interest and must take measures to address any actual or perceived conflict of interest. Allowing staff members who are subject to such serious allegations to be involved in any aspect of the resident’s complaint was inappropriate and called into question the integrity of the process.
In summary, we find the landlord unreasonably used its grumble process when in fact it should have accepted the resident’s complaint in June 2022. When it did accept the complaint, it omitted serious allegations that were made during the investigation timeline. The landlord also inappropriately refused to escalate the resident’s complaint, which was a heavy–handed rather than customer–focused approach. The landlord’s complaints process raised unnecessary barriers and challenges for the resident, causing her distress and inconvenience. As a result, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Due to the errors identified and the impact on the resident we have made an award of £300 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance. The remedies guidance recommends awards of this level where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. A higher award has been made for this complaint point in recognition of the increased impact and severity of the failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Requests for repairs.
2. Concerns regarding staff conduct.
3. Complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £700 compensation. This sum is inclusive of the money already offered. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs.
  2. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
  3. £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident to ask if she would like to pursue her complaint about staff conduct during the visit to her property on 26 May 2023. If she chooses to pursue the complaint, the landlord must respond in line with its policy and the code.