Wandle Housing Association Limited (202004197)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004197

Wandle Housing Association Limited

26 January 2022

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
1. Response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged possessions following a leak at the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of her neighbour leaving items in the communal hallway of the building.
3. Administration of the resident’s rent account, specifically that a £50 payment went missing.
4. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the assured tenant of a property owned and managed by the landlord. The property is a first floor three bedroom flat in a building containing two flats.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that residents are responsible for damage to their possessions from water. Claims for damage to residents’ possessions will only be considered where the landlord could have reasonably foreseen the need for repair and failed to take action, or where there is a clear legal liability. In other circumstances it is the responsibility of the resident to make a claim under their home contents insurance. The policy says that for this reason the landlord encourages all residents to obtain home contents insurance.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that compensation will not usually be provided when the issue should be covered by the customer’s contents insurance.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) says that a full record shall be kept of the complaint, any review and the outcomes at each stage. This should include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared.
The code also says that at the completion of each stage of the complaints process the landlord should write to the resident advising them of the complaint stage and details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
Paragraph 10 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the landlord must provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman, that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. The code also says that the landlord shall cooperate with the Ombudsman’s requests for evidence.
The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 permits a landlord to attach a legal document (a tort notice) to an item that is believed to have been abandoned on the grounds of the property and then arrange for the disposal of the abandoned item if the notice is not acted upon or the item removed.
The landlord’s repair records say that:
1. On 29 June 2020 an order was issued to replace the toilet in the bathroom at the property and the order was completed on 1 July 2020.
2. On 10 July 2020 an order was issued concerning the resident’s report that there was “a severe leakage of water coming from the stop cock, water is leaking into airing cupboard and most items in storing cupboards have been damaged i.e., bed sheets, duvet, suitcases. [The resident] said we attended last week, turned stop cock off to repair leak to toilet.” The order was completed on 14 July 2020.
3. On 14 July 2020 a further order was issued concerning the resident’s reports that “Stop cock in airing cupboard is leaking…. Leak is not as bad as previously but still making floor wet.” The order was completed on 21 July 2020.
4. On 24 August 2020 and 2 September 2020 an order was issued concerning the resident’s reports that “The water valve is leaking again in the airing cupboard. Only a little drip though.” The order was completed on 3 September 2020.
The resident asked the landlord to pay her compensation for the items damaged by water in the airing cupboard and for damage to the wooden flooring by the airing cupboard. The landlord asked the resident to provide it with receipts for the damaged items. The resident says that she provided the landlord with photographs of the damage but that she did not have receipts for the items.
The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her request for compensation and sometime following this the landlord issued a stage one complaint response. The resident then asked to escalate the complaint and on 27 August 2020 the landlord responded at stage two of its complaints process. In its complaint response the landlord said that:
1. The resident had asked for compensation for the contents of the airing cupboard and replacement of wooden flooring by the airing cupboard of approximately £3000.
2. It did not agree that any resultant damage was due to a failing of its operative.
3. It contested the level of damage the resident said was caused by the leak in the airing cupboard.
4. It had asked the resident for photographs or evidence substantiating the level of compensation she was seeking, and it would need that to further review. However, it would not normally consider making a compensation payment unless there had been a clear loss of service.
5. It urged the resident to make a claim on her household contents insurance.
6. If the resident did not have household contents insurance, she could initiate a third party claim which the landlord could progress with its insurers.
7. If there were any unresolved issues in relation to the complaint, or she wished to ask for a review of the way her complaint had been handled, she could let the landlord know.
Following contact from this Service on 14 August 2020 and 9 September 2020, the landlord sent the resident an email on 14 September 2020 confirming that its letter dated 27 August 2020 had been its final response to the complaint which had exhausted its internal complaints process.
The resident maintains that she made a number of reports to the landlord prior to August 2020 about the downstairs neighbour leaving belongings in the communal hallway at the property.
On 4 August 2020 the landlord sent an internal email saying that sometime during the previous week it had “served a tort…for the removal of a wardrobe from the small communal hallway.”
The resident says that she made a formal complaint to the landlord about its response to her reports about the neighbour leaving her belongings in the hallway at the beginning of August 2020.
On 6 August 2020 the landlord sent an internal email saying “Can you please arrange for one contractor and bulk waste operative to attend and move the wardrobe from the communal hallway, as the action relates to both a fire risk and outstanding complaint. Two tort notices have now been served, so the residents are aware that the item is due to be moved…please confirm the date with the complainant.”
On 10 August 2020 the landlord sent an internal email saying that the resident had telephoned that day concerning her complaint and that she “wanted to escalate this matter further as the lack of response from [the landlord] is not satisfactory as the date provided to collect items last week was not attended to. she is still waiting for a call back on this matter”. The wardrobe was removed from the property later that day.
On 11 August 2020 the landlord sent the resident a response to her complaint. In its complaint response the landlord said that:
1. It had written to her on 28 July 2020 concerning the issue.
2. Following its 28 July 2020 letter to the resident it had been liaising with its repairs and bulk waste team to arrange the removal of the wardrobe.
3. It apologised that it had not provided a level of service that met her expectations.
4. To resolve her concerns the wardrobe had been removed on 10 August 2020.
5. If there were unaddressed issues in relation to the complaint, or the resident wished to request a review of the way her complaint has been handled, she should let it know.
On 14 August 2020 and 9 September 2020, following contact from the resident, this Service sent emails to the landlord asking it to update the resident as to the status of her complaint.
On 14 September 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident attaching a copy of its letter dated 11 August 2020 which it said was its stage two response to the complaint and confirmed that the complaint had exhausted its complaints process.
The resident has informed this Service that part of her rent is not covered by housing benefit payments due to the bedroom tax and she pays this element of the rent direct to the landlord. She maintains that the landlord telephoned her on 3 November 2020 saying she was in arrears and the resident had agreed to make up the payments.
On 20 November 2020 the resident paid £50 to the landlord over the telephone. During the call the landlord told the resident that it was having trouble with its systems. Sometime following this the resident says that she received a letter from the landlord saying that it would be issuing a notice seeking possession because she was in arrears with her rent payments. The resident also says that when she spoke to the landlord it did not have a record of receiving the £50 payment she had made on 20 November 2020. The resident also says that she informed the landlord that she wasn’t aware of how much the amount of the bedroom tax portion of the rent was.
On 30 November 2020, following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to log a complaint from the resident about the landlord’s administration of her rent account.
On 18 December 2020 the resident telephoned this Service saying that she had received another call from the landlord saying it could not find a record of receiving the £50 payment.
Following its stage one response to the complaint the landlord spoke to the resident and wrote to her on 20 December 2020 with its complaint review. In its letter the landlord:
1. Confirmed that the £50 payment was still not showing on the resident’s account.
2. Acknowledged that its income officer could have shown “more empathy and understanding” during her initial contact with the resident.
3. Acknowledged that it got things wrong and apologised for any inconvenience or distress that this had caused the resident.
4. Said that it would learn from the resident’s experience and work to improve its service in the future.
5. Confirmed that it had requested that the missing payment be located and credited to the resident’s rent account, and it would send the resident a rent statement once this was done.
6. Confirmed that the landlord would not be serving a notice seeking possession and would allow more time within the month for the resident to make payment towards her rent account.
7. Confirmed the amount of payments towards the bedroom tax element of the rent.
The landlord’s letter dated 20 December 2020 was its final response to the resident’s complaint, confirming that the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complains process.

Assessment and findings

In reaching decisions about the resident’s complaints, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
During the course of this investigation the resident has also raised concerns with this Service about the landlord’s response to her request that it replace the tiles taken up in the bathroom when replacing the toilet with similar tiles, rather than lino. The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation report, therefore, concerns the matters which were the subject of the resident’s formal complaints which were the subject of the landlord’s final responses dated 27 August 2020, 10 August 2020 and 20 December 2020.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged possessions following a leak at the property

The landlord’s response that it would not pay compensation for damaged possessions at the property was appropriate as:
1. Its complaints policy says that compensation will not usually be provided when the issue should be covered by the customer’s contents insurance.
2. Its repair policy says that residents are responsible for damage to their possessions from water and it is the responsibility of the resident to make a claim under their home contents insurance.
3. Its repairs policy says that claims for damage to residents’ possessions will only be considered where the landlord could have reasonably foreseen the need for repair and failed to take action or where there is a clear legal liability. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to demonstrate that the landlord could reasonably have foreseen that turning off the stop cock at the property would have caused a leak into the airing cupboard.
The landlord also acted reasonably and demonstrated a resolution focused approach in offering to help progress a third party claim on its insurance if the resident didn’t have household contents insurance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports her neighbour, leaving items in the communal hallway of the building

During the course of this investigation the resident has informed this Service that the problem of the downstairs neighbour leaving her belongings in the communal hallway is ongoing. Whilst this has been distressing for the resident, as explained above, the Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation report, therefore, concerns the matters which were the subject of the resident’s formal complaint dealt with in the landlord’s final response dated 10 August 2020.
The landlord acted reasonably in responding to the resident’s reports about the wardrobe being in the communal hallway by issuing a torts notice under The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 and removing the wardrobe.
However, the Ombudsman has not seen copies of the following that it requested from the landlord as part of this investigation:
1. Correspondence or contact notes concerning the reports of the neighbour leaving items in the communal hallway.
2. Any records concerning the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s reports about the items left in the communal hallway, such as any inspection notes concerning visits to neighbouring properties.
3. Copies of any correspondence or notices sent to the resident or the neighbour concerning the landlord’s findings.
This is unsatisfactory and has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to thoroughly investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning the items left in the communal hallway, specifically:
1. Whether the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports was reasonable.
2. How quickly the landlord responded to the resident’s reports.
3. What information the landlord gave the resident in its letter dated 28 July 2020.
4. What information the landlord had given the resident concerning the date that it had originally planned to remove the wardrobe.
5. Whether the landlord kept the resident sufficiently updated concerning the progress of its investigation into the wardrobe being in the communal hallway.
6. Whether it was reasonable that the wardrobe was not removed until 10 August 2020.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of contact with residents. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. This represents a service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account, specifically, that a £50 payment has gone missing

In its response to the resident’s complaint the landlord acknowledged that its income officer should have shown more empathy and understanding to the resident during her initial contact with the resident and that the resident’s payment of £50 was not showing on her account. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience or distress that this had caused the resident.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an apology) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman has not seen copies of the following that it requested from the landlord as part of this investigation:
1. The landlord’s records concerning the resident’s enquiries into the administration of her rent account for the period in question, such as copies of correspondence, rent statements, warnings and notices.
2. Copies of any correspondence between the landlord and the resident which concerned the rent account during the relevant period.
3. A record of any advice or assistance which the landlord provided to the resident.
This is unsatisfactory and has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to thoroughly investigate the landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account during the relevant period and consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was fair and put things right, specifically:
1. The extent of any distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s actions during the telephone calls with her on 3 November, 30 November 2020 and around 18 December 2020.
2. The extent of any distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of any letters sent by the landlord concerning the arrears on her account which did not acknowledge receipt of the £50.
3. What action the landlord took to locate the missing £50 payment and the extent of any time and trouble incurred by the resident in chasing this matter up with the landlord.
The landlord has also provided no evidence that it has learnt from the outcome of the complaint by detailing what improvements it would be making to its service in the future.
There was therefore service failure by the landlord in its administration of the resident’s rent account.

Complaints handling

As set out in paragraphs 5 to 7 above:
1. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code says that:
  1. A full record shall be kept of the complaint, any review and the outcomes at each stage. This should include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident.
  2. At the completion of each stage of the complaints process the landlord should write to the resident advising them of the complaint stage and details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
  3. The landlord shall cooperate with the Ombudsman’s requests for evidence.
2. Paragraph 10 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the landlord must provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman, that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint
The landlord’s final response to the complaint about its response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged possessions dated 27 August 2020 did not:
1. Make it clear that the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure as it said that the resident could contact it to ask for a review of the complaint.
2. Provide details of how the resident could escalate the complaint to this Service.
The landlord’s final response to the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports her neighbour leaving items in the communal hallway dated 11 August 2020 did not:
1. Make it clear that the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure as it said that the resident could contact it to ask for a review of the complaint.
2. Provide details of how the resident could escalate the complaint to this Service.
The landlord’s lack of clarity in its complaint responses set out in paragraph 43 and 44 caused the resident to incur time and trouble in contacting this Service.
Despite being requested to do so, the landlord did not contact the resident to clarify the status of her complaints following the email from this Service on 14 August 2021, causing the resident to incur further time and trouble in contacting this Service.
The landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it had requested in relation to its handling of each of the three the complaints, specifically:
1. The resident’s original complaints.
2. The resident’s escalation requests.
3. The landlord’s stage one complaint responses.
4. Any other contact notes, correspondence, internal emails or call records relating to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Therefore, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 43 to 47 above the landlord’s complaints handling was inappropriate and in breach of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged possessions following a leak at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of her neighbour leaving items in the communal hallway of the building.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about the landlord’s:
1. Administration of the resident’s rent account, specifically, that a £50 payment has gone missing.
2. Complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response that it would not pay compensation for damaged possessions at the property was appropriate and in accordance with its policy provisions.
The landlord did not keep appropriate records concerning its response to the resident’s reports of her neighbour leaving items in the communal hallway.
The landlord did not keep appropriate records concerning its administration of the resident’s rent account during the relevant period, nor provide evidence that its response had resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
The landlord’s complaint handling was inappropriate and in breach of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £375. This is comprised of:
1. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor record keeping in relation to the resident’s reports of her neighbour leaving items in the communal hallway.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s administration of, and record keeping of, the resident’s rent account.
3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to its poor complaint handling.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to confirm whether she is currently experiencing any issue with the neighbour leaving items in the communal hallway and if so, the landlord should agree an action plan with the resident going forward, including timeframes for actions to be taken.