WATMOS Community Homes (202316586)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316586

WATMOS Community Homes

30 April 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 reports of a leak.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom second–floor flat. The landlord is a housing association and the freeholder of the block of flats.
On 2 May 2023, the resident told the landlord that there was a leak from the balcony above coming through the ceiling into her property. She asked it to action the repair as soon as possible and to provide an update on when the issue could be addressed.
On 19 May 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said the leak was caused by a faulty balcony, and it was affecting her daily life and causing severe damage to her property. She said the issue had been ongoing since 2 May 2023 and had still not been resolved. She explained that after 20 years of similar incidents she had no option but to complain. She stated that she was making a formal request to demolish the existing balconies because they were not fit for purpose and posed a threat to the safety of residents due to their design. As a result, she said she wanted to make a claim against the design architect. She asked the landlord to provide the architect’s details, the building information, and advice on proceeding with a claim.
On 19 June 2023, the landlord contacted the resident. It said that it had assessed her complaint in line with its complaints policy and was unable to log the communication as a complaint. It advised that the repair she had mentioned in that email was being actioned and she did not appear to be complaining about that aspect. It said that the resident’s comments about the previous leaks, architect information and the structural integrity of the balconies did not concern a failure of service.
The resident again contacted the landlord to make a formal complaint on 20 June 2023. She said she had reported a repair on 2 May 2023. She said no action had been taken by the landlord, and it had not provided any update. The resident also asked for a single point of contact.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 17 July 2023. It said:
1. It was sorry for the delayed response.
2. It acknowledged that there had been leaks reported from the property above since 2020. The current repair had been ongoing since May 2023.
3. It did not know if a survey had taken place because the surveyor who had been dealing with the repair had left the organisation. The surveyor had not left any handover notes.
4. It requested more time to conduct a survey.
5. A leak check was conducted on 20 June 2023, but no leak was detected. It was not satisfied with this outcome and had requested an additional water penetration test.
6. Leak detection and the process of elimination was time consuming. It apologised for the delays this caused.
7. It apologised for its communication failures and acknowledged that the resident should have received feedback from the previous surveyor. As compensation it offered a £50 shopping voucher.
The resident escalated her complaint on 5 August 2023. She said she had not been provided with any details for her point of contact. She noted that she had emailed the landlord for an update but had not received a reply. She said she had also called on 31 July 2023 but had not received a call back. She said the insurance company and the painters were waiting to complete the decorating, but nothing could progress without an update. As an outcome she said she wanted contact details for the person she should be speaking to. She also requested an update on the repair and for the landlord to update the insurance company. She said the leak had been reported on 2 May 2023 and there had been no progress on the repair for the last 2 months.
On 14 August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident informing her that it was rejecting her escalation request. It said it had emailed her with the staff member’s details that had accidentally been omitted from the stage 1 response. The staff member who was the resident’s point of contact would contact her later that day to update her on repairs. The landlord said that the points the resident had raised in her escalation request were not previously mentioned in the stage 1 complaint. It therefore considered that those points did not constitute a dispute of the response itself. It confirmed the rejection request was the end of its complaints process. It stated that the response it had issued on 17 July 2023 was its final position.
The resident complained again on 13 October 2023 via email and 16 October 2023 using the landlord’s complaint form. She said:
1. In her original complaint (refused by the landlord) she had raised concerns about the recurring leaks and structural integrity of the balconies. She felt the landlord had not given these points due consideration or attention.
2. She had been told that her email containing these points had been forwarded to the landlord’s assets team as a service request. She had not received any further communication, which made her doubt the landlord’s commitment to addressing her concerns.
3. She had reported a leak affecting her property on 2 May 2023. Despite numerous complaints and follow up emails the leak had not been rectified.
4. This had caused considerable frustration and disruption to her daily life. The leak had caused damage to belongings including furniture, electronics and personal items. It was also causing damp and mildew within the property.
5. She had raised the issue in an email on 14 June 2023 but again had not received any meaningful update.
6. She had reported the issue 4 times between 20 June 2023 and 27 September 2023. Despite repeated assurances of immediate action, no steps had been taken to resolve the issue.
7. She was deeply dissatisfied with the level of service provided by the landlord.
8. She wanted a prompt response that included a clear plan of action to resolve the outstanding repair. She also requested £600 compensation to cover the costs of the required redecorating in her property.
On 3 November 2023, the landlord told the resident that it was accepting her complaint of 16 October 2023 as an escalation request as it related to the delays in completing the actions in the stage 1 response on 17 July 2023
The landlord issued its stage 2 response the same day. It said that its response was also related to her previous complaint that it declined to escalate on 14 August 2023. It acknowledged that it had failed to adequately communicate with the resident and keep her informed, which fell below its expected standard. It committed to providing regular updates until there had been a resolution to the repair. It confirmed it had authorised a payment of £600 compensation for the delay and disruption caused. It said this would be paid once the work was complete.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s lease confirms that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the structure of the building, including roofs, external and internal walls, gutters, and rainwater goods.
The landlord’s policy lists 4 categories of repairs, as follows:
1. ‘Immediate’ repairs affect the immediate safety or security of the property or potentially affect the health and safety of the resident. Examples include gas leaks, uncontrollable water leaks, structural damage, and serious electrical faults. The landlord will attend within 3 hours.
2. ‘Emergency’ repairs affect the safety or security of the property or potentially affect the health of the resident. Examples include a blocked toilet, loss of power, and loss of heat in winter months. The landlord will attend within 24 hours.
3. ‘Urgent’ repairs are not classed as an emergency but could result in the loss of a basic facility, or further damage if the problem is not dealt with urgently. Examples include a minor leak to the roof, and partial loss of heating in winter months. The landlord will attend within 5 working days.
4. ‘Routine’ repairs are those that are not causing major inconvenience to the resident and include repairs to walls, brickwork and slate/tiles. The landlord will complete all routine repairs within 25 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can pay compensation where a resident has suffered inconvenience, distress, or loss. It lists failure to conduct repairs within agreed timescales and failure to provide the required level of service as reasons where compensation may be appropriate. The level of compensation will be considered on a case-by-case basis up to a maximum payment of £250. Levels above this must be referred to its insurers.
The resident notified the landlord of the leak affecting her property on 2 May 2023. In line with its repairs policy, this would be classed as an urgent repair with a 5–working–day response time. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s contact or conduct an inspection. This was unreasonable and a failure to comply with the timescales in its repairs policy. The lack of contact was frustrating for the resident.
As part of her complaint the resident contacted the landlord again on 19 May 2023. She said that she had not been provided with an update on the repair. While this communication was sent to the complaints team, we would have expected that team to pass the request to the repairs team. However, there is no evidence that this happened, and again the resident did not receive any update. The landlord’s lack of action was unhelpful and caused ongoing delays for the resident.
This Service expects landlords to have in place, apply and monitor their own communication key performance indicators to ensure residents are responded to as required. This helps to deliver clear, effective and timely communication, which supports residents and the complaint handling process. There is no evidence that the landlord had any target timescales for responding to contact from residents, or, if it did, that it considered these in the resident’s case.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 31 May 2023. The landlord’s records indicate that it called the resident back the same day. The notes do not detail what information was passed over or if the staff member actually spoke to the resident. The resident disputes she received the call back. She made 2 further requests for updates on 20 June and 18 July 2023, but again the landlord did not contact her. The failure to call the resident back was unreasonable. It caused her ongoing frustration as well as time and trouble chasing an update.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it was unaware if a survey had been undertaken. This was because its surveyor had not taken or recorded any notes. It then went on to say that an inspection had taken place on 20 June 2023, but it was not going to rely on the inspection and had arranged a further investigation. The landlord’s records do not show any inspection or visit on 20 June 2023. Both the absence of handover notes from the surveyor and the missing records for the inspection indicate poor record keeping.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Failure to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action and missing opportunities to resolve repairs, as happened in this case. In addition, if the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The landlord conducted an inspection on 20 July 2023. The inspection identified defects with the guttering and balconies of 2 properties above the resident’s as the cause of the leak. The contractors advised they would require scaffolding to complete further inspection and remedial works. Unreasonably, the landlord did not update the resident that the inspection had taken place or inform her of the next steps it was taking. It also did not update her after it later inspected the neighbouring properties. As a result, she had to make another request for an update in her complaint escalation request on 14 August 2023. This shows continuing issues with the landlord’s communication and a failure to learn from its mistakes, which caused prolonged frustration for the resident.
The landlord contacted the resident on 24 August 2023 to provide an update and share the report from the inspection on 20 July 2023. This was a positive step. The resident responded on 25 August 2023, pointing out that the report said the work would be completed within 25 days (23 August 2023). On 31 August 2023, the landlord advised it expected the work to be completed within 2 weeks (19 September 2023) and that it would let the resident know when the work was complete. Unreasonably, the landlord did not provide an update, and the resident expended further time and trouble chasing progress on 21 September and 3 October 2023.
The resident felt the need to make a further complaint before the landlord contacted her on 25 October 2023 to inform her that there had been delays with the scaffolding due to issues with access. It was unfair that the landlord had not previously provided this information. The landlord’s communication was predominantly reactive and only in response to repeated communications from the resident. This would have likely left her feeling unheard and believing that the repair was not a priority for the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 November 2023. It acknowledged and apologised for its communication issues and confirmed it would provide regular updates to the resident moving forward. Over the remaining weeks the landlord’s communication did improve, which was positive and shows it had learned from its mistakes. It also acknowledged the delays and agreed to award the £600 compensation that the resident had requested in her complaint escalation on 16 October 2023.
This award exceeded that allowed by the landlord’s policy, which demonstrates that it exercised appropriate discretion to offer an amount that adequately reflected the experience of the resident. The award of £600 was also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for circumstances where the resident was adversely affected, but there was no permanent impact.
The repair was completed on 24 November 2023. This was a period of 145 working days (over 29 weeks) since the resident first reported the leak. This was an unreasonably long period that significantly exceeded the maximum timeframe set out within the landlord’s repairs policy. Throughout the repair period the landlord also demonstrated poor communication by failing to provide updates when requested and failing to sufficiently acknowledge and address the resident’s concerns.
In summary, there were numerous failures in the landlord’s handling of this case, mainly in relation to record keeping and communication. Had substantial redress not been offered in line with the resident’s expectations, a finding of maladministration would have been made. In all the circumstances, taking account of the landlord’s apology, recognition of its errors and financial award, the offer of redress is considered both reasonable and proportionate. We therefore consider that it amounts to reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint the landlord had a 2-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord defines a complaint 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”. The policy lists several reasons that it may lead it to refuse to consider a complaint. The policy also confirms that it may refuse to escalate a complaint for the same reasons. The list includes:
1. Matters already considered and responded to under the complaints policy.
2. Decisions made in accordance with statutory obligations such as succession or right to rent.
3. Service requests.
4. Where the issue has been raised repeatedly resulting in contact restrictions in line with its unacceptable behaviour policy.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 19 May 2023. In the complaint she highlighted that she had contacted the landlord about a leak on 2 May 2023 but had not received an update. She detailed the impact on her daily life and the damage being caused to her balcony. She listed previous leaks and expressed her dissatisfaction with the design of the building and requested the details for the design architect.
Having not received a response from the landlord, the resident contacted it again on 14 June 2023. She expressed her dissatisfaction that she had not received an update or acknowledgement since making her complaint on 19 May 2023. She also said she wanted an update on the repair. Failing to acknowledge the resident’s previous complaint communication was unreasonable and caused her to expend avoidable time and trouble chasing the landlord for a response.
The landlord refused the resident’s complaint on 19 June 2023. To explain its decision, it said the repair was being actioned and that her comments about the balconies and architect did not constitute a failure in service. It said it had passed these concerns to its contracts and repairs manager and asked for them to respond to her. It said it had made a further request for this to happen on 14 June 2023.
The resident’s email about the leak on 2 May 2023 was a request for service. Her complaint on 19 May 2023 was about the landlord’s response to the leak, which had been ongoing since 3 May 2023 and had yet to be resolved. She also said that after years of similar incidents she had “no option but to complain”. The landlord’s repairs policy requires leak repairs to be actioned within 5 days. Not doing so was a failure in service, which is what the resident was complaining about. The resident’s complaint aligned with the definition of a complaint in the landlord’s policy. Further, the landlord’s failure to respond to the complaint as highlighted by the resident on 14 June 2023 was cause for an additional expression of dissatisfaction and failure in service. This should also have been accepted as a complaint. The refusal to accept the complaint was unnecessarily obstructive and contrary to both the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). This was unfair on the resident.
After the landlord’s refusal on 19 June 2023, the resident complained again on 20 June 2023. She said she had reported a leak on 2 May 2023. She noted the leak had not been repaired and she had not had an update. She also asked for a single point of contact. The landlord accepted this as a complaint. However, it was no different to the resident’s points about the leak in her original complaint. The landlord’s contradictory actions indicated its earlier decision was incorrect.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day, which was positive. On 3 July 2023, 9 working days beyond when the response was due, the landlord notified the resident that it required more time and would provide a response by 17 July 2023. If landlords require more time, they should notify the resident before the response is due, not after. The landlord’s actions were not in line with its policy or the Code, and likely caused further uncertainty and frustration for the resident.
The landlord issued its complaint response on 17 July 2023. The resident then asked to escalate her request on 5 August 2023. She said she had not been given the specific point of contact details that she had requested and had still not received an update. She also stated that her insurance company and painters were waiting to complete decoration but could not progress without an update. On 14 August 2023, the landlord refused to escalate the resident’s complaint. It said it had emailed her with the staff member’s details (the same day it rejected the escalation) and that her remaining points were not mentioned in the stage 1 complaint. We disagree with the landlord. The resident’s original complaint was about the leak not being fixed and not receiving an update. The escalation request was about the same issues. Her escalation points were valid and the escalation should have been accepted. The landlord’s approach to the complaint is concerning. It placed unnecessary barriers in the resident’s path, which unfairly prevented her from progressing her complaint.
The resident complained again on 13 and 16 October 2023. Her complaint points remained the same as those in her original complaint and her escalation request. She also referred to her comments about the architect and building design, which the landlord had advised had been passed to management to respond to as a service request. The resident confirmed she had not received any further communication, which made her doubt the landlord’s commitment to addressing her concerns. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 October 2023, with a further acknowledgement on 3 November 2023 that considered both complaints. This was within the required response times, which was appropriate. In the acknowledgement on 3 November 2023, it said it believed her latest complaint was about the delays in completing the agreed actions in the stage 1 response. The landlord therefore felt the complaint met the criteria for a stage 2 escalation. It was positive the landlord recognised this, which meant the resident did not have to go back to the beginning of the complaint process.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 November 2023. It said that its response was also related to the response (escalation refusal) it had sent on 14 August 2023. This was an indication that it considered the points made in the resident’s escalation request as part of the failings identified. However, it did not explicitly say this, which was unhelpful. Doing so would have shown transparency and a willingness to acknowledge previous errors.
The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to acknowledge the fact that the resident had not received a response regarding the architect or the design of the balconies that she had been promised on 14 June 2023. Further, the landlord failed to include its answer to those points in its stage 2 response, which was a failure to comply with the Code. The Code requires landlords to deal with all compliant points put forward by residents. This absence of any answer was unreasonable and likely reinforced the resident’s doubt in the landlord’s commitment to addressing those concerns. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to revisit this aspect of the complaint.
Overall, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It unfairly refused to accept the resident’s original complaint. When it did accept her next complaint, it missed its target response date and provided delayed notification that it required more time. It also unfairly refused to escalate the complaint. In its stage 2 response it did not recognise earlier failures and did not respond to all complaint points raised. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to pay £150 compensation. This is in line with its compensation policy as well as the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where the resident was adversely affected, but there was no permanent impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s 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 associated with its complaint handling. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of her complaint.
3. Provide a response to the resident in relation to the points raised in her complaint emails on 19 May 2023 and 13 October 2023 about the architect, design and structural integrity of the balconies. The response must include its decisions on these points and an explanation of the reasons for these decisions.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the time limits specified.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £600 it offered for its delays in repairing the leak, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that evidence of this payment is provided.