WATMOS Community Homes (202314779)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314779

WATMOS Community Homes

17 June 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:
1. Resident’s reports about the standard of cyclical redecoration works to the communal areas of the block.
2. Associated complaints.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 3–bedroom within a high-rise block. The landlord is the freeholder. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 31 January 2023 the landlord sent the resident a notice of intention to carry out works under a qualifying long-term agreement. The letter explained that the works to be carried out under the agreement are those required to meet its obligations to maintain the building. The works included preparation and redecoration of all previously decorated surfaces and associated works to the building’s internal communal areas.
The resident reported concerns about the quality of paint works on 29 March 2023 and in 2 further emails on 7 and 10 April 2023. He said:
1. The floor paint was applied directly onto flaky paint without preparation to the surface.
2. Some patches had been missed, and the paint was already flaking off.
3. The landlord should advise the steps it had taken for quality assurance for works being charged to its leaseholders.
4. The landlord should address this with the contractors before they left the site and get them to rectify it.
The landlord replied on 12 and 13 April 2023 that the painters would return to resolve the issues. It also assured the resident that his concerns would be raised with the head of contracts.
The resident requested an update on 17 and 18 May 2023. He said the works were not up to standard, incomplete, or not managed properly and he asked for a meeting at the block. He raised a formal stage 1 complaint on 22 July 2023 expressing frustration with the landlord’s handling of the matter and that his communications had been ignored.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 9 August 2023. It acknowledged the resident’s enquiries were not addressed and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It explained that all works were signed off as complete and in accordance with the agreed specification. The landlord concluded it was satisfied with the works carried out.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 15 September 2023. He said:
1. The works remained incomplete as evidenced in the photographs he had provided and done to a poor standard.
2. The landlord should provide evidence of quality procedures before works were signed off.
3. The landlord had refused his request for a meeting at the block.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 30 October 2023 and said:
1. The overall contract and areas of work were done to a satisfactory level in accordance with the service requirements.
2. Following its discussion with the resident and its review, it would review the areas mentioned to complete them and rectify the key areas that could be improved.
3. It would consider training to ensure staff signing off on works can identify these issues in the future.
4. It was putting in place new and improved ways of responding to residents concerning their specific repairs.

Events after the complaints process was exhausted

The resident expressed disappointment in his email to the landlord, dated 30 October 2023. He said the response was contradictory and asked why the landlord had agreed to arrange training, when it said the works were satisfactory.
In its internal email dated 31 October 2023 the landlord said:
1. It had upheld its stage 1 decision that the contract ‘on the whole’ was well managed and works were completed.
2. It did not uphold that the block and the areas that could be rectified and improved were to a standard it would expect, and it should review those and complete or rectify those works.
3. It would discuss training and potential ways it can improve contract management.
The resident advised us on 16 January 2024 that he would like the works completed to a good standard as they had already started to deteriorate.
Around 20 September 2024 the landlord said there was no evidence to show that actions agreed were followed up at the time, but it had since been brought it to the attention of the new director of assets and regeneration for the works to be actioned.
The resident advised us on 13 June 2025 that the landlord had not revisited the matter. He said the works needed to be redone as it had deteriorated significantly due to the poor quality.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As part of his communication with the landlord, the resident was concerned that leaseholders were being charged for sub-standard works carried out to the communal areas. The First–Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has the authority to make findings as to whether costs incurred for repairs or maintenance were reasonably incurred and whether the services or works are of a reasonable standard.
The resident has the option to contact the Tribunal if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint. This report will consider whether the landlord sufficiently responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the works carried out.

The resident’s reports about the standard of cyclical redecoration works to the communal areas of the block

Under the terms of the lease, the landlord agrees to keep the structure and all communal areas and facilities clean, safe, and in good repair, and carry out periodic redecoration of the communal areas of the block.
It is stated in the leaseholder handbook that:
1. The landlord wants to make its estates and buildings areas where people are proud to live and maintain standards that most people would expect to apply.
2. It would carry out joint estate walkabouts with residents (committee members and its staff) and they can request this if they would like to participate.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for financial awards where failure to provide the required quality of service has caused distress or inconvenience.
The landlord replied to the resident’s emails sent in March and April 2023 about the standard of works within a reasonable timeframe. It explained on 12 April 2023 that the painters had left to resolve an issue in another block, and they would return to address any issues. However, it failed to provide a further update in a timely manner, which caused the resident concern and frustration.
The resident expressed these concerns in his email on 17 May 2023 that leaseholders would bear the financial burden of renewing the painting in a few years, if the works were not quality checked. The landlord advised on 18 May 2023 that it had completed a site inspection of the cyclical redecoration works done so far (in April 2023) and found it to be of an acceptable standard. It said it would investigate the points raised by the resident and respond to him.
The resident responded the same day, that it was clear from the photographs he had previously provided that this was not the case and asked the landlord its process for ensuring the works were long-lasting. Although he requested a meeting with the landlord to show the areas he was concerned about, we have not seen evidence that it responded. This was unreasonable, as the leaseholder handbook assures residents this is a service they can request.
The landlord advised the resident on 25 May 2023 that its head of contracts would contact him directly to address his concerns. However, the landlord failed to follow up the matter proactively. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 4 July 2023 approximately 14 weeks after his initial contact. He said aside from his concerns about the quality, the works had not been completed and there were areas that had not been painted at all. While the landlord discussed the resident’s request for a meeting in its internal email on 5 July 2023, we have not seen evidence that it followed this up with the resident. This was unreasonable.
In his formal complaint on 22 July 2023 the resident said the communication with the landlord had been a frustrating experience. He said his emails and photographic evidence had been ignored. The resident expressed concerns about the competency of the relevant staff who had signed off the works as satisfactory. The landlord apologised to the resident on 7 August 2023 for the delay in responding to him. It provided details of the materials used during the cyclical works and assured him that it would formally respond to his complaint accordingly. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged a failing in its communication and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
The landlord maintained in its stage 1 response on 9 August 2023 that it was satisfied with the works completed. However, there was evidence of some learning by the landlord. Its stage 2 response on 30 October 2023 indicated it discussed the matter with the resident. It was also appropriate that the landlord agreed to revisit the block and resolve any outstanding issues. We also welcome the landlord’s commitment to consider training for staff signing off on works, as this indicates it accepted there was a failing and it sought ways to improve the process.
With regards to the communication, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this as a failure. Along with an apology, it said it had “met internally and reported to its board on its communication channels”. The landlord said it was putting in place new and improved ways of responding to residents concerning their specific repairs.
Given the service failures identified by the landlord in its overall communication, it would have been reasonable to award compensation for the inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident. The resident did express in his stage 2 complaint on 15 September 2023 that chasing up the matter was causing distress due to the time and energy in pursuing it. We have seen from the evidence that he spent approximately 8 months (March 29 to October 2023) communicating and following up the case with the landlord.
While the landlord assured the resident it would return to the block and rectify any areas that can be improved, it advised us on 20 September 2024 that it failed to follow this up.
Due to the above, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of cyclical redecoration works to the communal areas.
To address this, we have awarded £200 which aligns with the landlord’s compensation policy, for failures to provide the required quality of service resulting in distress or inconvenience. This is also in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has not fully put things right. We have made orders for the landlord carry out the actions it agreed.

The associated complaints

The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure follow the guidance set out in our scheme and our complaint handling code. It will aim to provide a written response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days (from the date it was acknowledged). It may extend this by 10 working days if additional time is required. The policy further states that the landlord:
1. Is committed to using customer feedback to improve its services.
2. Will put things right when they go wrong and resolve the complaint quickly.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of works carried out in his email of 29 March 2023 and in successive emails from (7 April 2023 to 10 April 2023). He asked the landlord to take action to resolve it. The landlord apologised on 12 April 2023 and assured him his concerns would be addressed. The landlord’s policy defines a service request as a request requiring action to be taken to put things right. The landlord’s response at this stage was reasonable.
In his formal complaint on 22 July 2023, the resident asked if his previous correspondences were logged as a complaint, but this was not addressed by the landlord. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not log the resident’s successive emails on 17 and 18 May 2023 and 4 July 2023 under its complaints process. This is because the resident expressed disagreement and dissatisfaction with the landlord’s processes. As stated in its complaints policy, the resident did not have to use the word complaint before his concerns were treated as such. This was a failing by the landlord.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint within the required timescales, but the stage 2 response was delayed. The resident requested the escalation of the complaint to stage 2 on 15 September 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it on 19 September 2023 in line with its policy
According to its complaints policy it would aim to respond within 20 working days of the date the complaint was acknowledged. The landlord requested an extension and duly notified the resident in writing on 16 October 2023. It provided a revised response date of 30 October 2023 (29 working days) and sent the response as agreed. While this was appropriate, the landlord did not acknowledge the delay or apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused in the stage 2 response.
Also, the landlord’s stage 2 response was confusing as also noted by the resident in his email on 30 October 2023. On one hand, the landlord said it had upheld its stage 1 findings, but further said it would instruct staff to complete the areas that needed improvement and rectify them. It said training would be considered to ensure staff signing off works can highlight such issues in future. The landlord’s findings were not clearly explained and this caused some confusion. We can see from its internal email on 31 October 2023 that the landlord clearly admitted a failing. Failure to state this clearly in the response caused the resident frustration.
Finally, the landlord failed to commit to actions agreed in the stage 2 response. This is not in line with its promise to take action to put things right quickly in line with its complaints policy. This was not appropriate.
Due to the above we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints. We have awarded £100 and made an order to address this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the standard of cyclical redecoration works to the communal areas of the block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £300 broken down as:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused due to its handling of the resident’s reports about the cyclical works.
  2. £100 for the frustration and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Further to its stage 2 response and its update to us on 20 September 2024 that the case had been referred to its director of regeneration for the works to be actioned, the landlord must revisit the outstanding actions and provide a timescale to our service and the resident for the works to be completed.
4. Consider measures it can put in place to monitor any actions agreed following completion of complaints to enable effective handling of complaints.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence of:
1. Training it said it would carry out for the staff who sign off works.
2. Any processes it had put in place to improve communication with its residents as stated in its stage 2 response.