Wandle Housing Association Limited (202002380)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002380

Wandle Housing Association Limited

15 June 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. Handling of flooring repairs to the property.
2. Response to the resident’s request for a new kitchen and bathroom.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that started on 2014. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has vulnerabilities including suffering from depression and PTSD.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining any installations it provides for including space heating, water heating, sanitation, drainage and supply of water. The resident must inform the landlord straight away of any repairs it had responsibility for and allow the landlord and/or its contractors to carry out inspections and repairs at reasonable times of the day. The landlord is also responsible for the structure of the property which includes floors.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy says that it will:
1. Complete emergency works within 24 hours of reporting.
2. Routine repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days, including follow-on works, unless agreed with the resident.
3. Major works will be completed within 90 calendar days unless agreed otherwise with the resident or they form part of a large-scale programme of works.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System is concerned with avoiding or, at the very least, minimizing potential hazards. Under this rating system the landlord has a responsibility to protect against accidents including falls.
The landlord’s decant policy says that, in some circumstances an emergency decant may be required due to major damage to the property or due to a significant health and safety risk to the resident to stay in the property.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to response at stage one within ten working days and within twenty working days at stage two. The policy says that it will not extend beyond a further ten working days at either stage extend without good reason.
This policy also says the landlord may offer discretionary compensation to a resident following a complaint. In reaching a decision on this the landlord will consider: the duration of the service failure or situation leading to the complaint; how often the customer was affected by the situation; the severity of the situation; the cumulative impact on the customer and their particular circumstances or vulnerabilities.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020.

Summary of events

The repair log evidences report of problems with the flooring in the property in 2018, namely:
1. 21 August 2018 – the resident reported a dip along the entire width of the kitchen floor which meant it was not level; the repair log notes this was resolved at the end of September 2018.
2. 19 September 2018 – the repair log noted that there was a trip hazard and the floor should be lifted, repaired and replaced. The repair log evidences that the same request was made on 5 February 2019 and this was resolved on 20 March 2019.
3. 19 October 2018 – the repair log noted that the chipboard under the kitchen flooring should be replaced so that the contractor could attend and complete their works. The log notes this was resolved on 3 December 2018.
On 23 August 2019 the resident told the landlord that the flooring was unsafe as there was a trip hazard as hot water plastic pipes were exposed and unprotected. He confirmed these pipes were exposed in the bedroom and hallway. He asked when the floor would be fixed. On the same day the repair log notes that this was “urgent” and action should be taken to make safe as needed and report back any remedial works. The log also noted that the resident was a vulnerable customer.
On 10 September 2019 the resident told the landlord he did not feel safe in his home and asked what they were going to do to fix the “dangerous” flooring.
On the same day the landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence as a formal complaint.
Also on 10 September 2019, the repair log evidences that the flooring should be checked for leaks. It noted that the flooring channel for the pipes seemed to have sunk which had prevented the subcontractor from carrying out works to replace the floor coverings.
On 13 September 2019 the contractor attended the property noting that the flooring was in a “bad way” … H&S [health and safety] risk”. They said there would be a meeting on 16 September 2019 to discuss a plan of action and they would update the resident after that.
The repair log evidences that on 16 September 2019 that the property should be attended to remove all vinyl flooring throughout the ground floor flat except for the bathroom. That plywood should be removed from the floor channel; pipework to be re–insulated and to supply and fit new waterproof plywood to the channel. The log also noted the same day that a damp inspection should be carried out on the concrete floors of the property as soon as possible to ascertain if there was any rising damp in the floor.
On 24 September 2019 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. It had carried out a carried out a full inspection of the property on 13 September 2019. This had identified that the flooring was “sinking in places” and it would need to allocate those works to a specialist contractor. A job was raised with its specialist contractor and they had provided a scope of works which they have advised would take approximately five days.
2. It had refused the resident’s decant request because the works would take less than four weeks to complete and could be carried out with the resident in occupation by doing works on a room-by-room basis to minimise disruption. The contractor agreed that they would ensure that the kitchen, bathroom and hallway were accessible at the close of works each day.
3. The landlord confirmed it was aware of the resident’s concerns about his mental health and wanted to make the process as stress–free as possible. It said it could arrange for the repairs to be carried when the resident was at work which was until 2pm each day and confirmed that that would extend the period of the works to more than five days.
4. The landlord confirmed that the specialist contractors would check for damp in the property; it said no damp inspection had been completed so far. It also confirmed the contractor would reinstate any floor coverings that had been lifted and, while it would not replace carpets, it would relay or replace the vinyl in the hallway as necessary. It added the hole in the storage cupboard could be addressed as part of the scheduled works.
5. The landlord concluded by saying that it considered it had responded in a timely manner to the flooring issues that the resident had raised and was unable to offer compensation. It asked the resident to contact it by 1 October 2019 to arrange for the works to proceed.
On 4 October 2019 the resident told the landlord that the specialist contractor had confirmed the concrete flooring had “100% damp” and it was most likely that drainage issues surrounding the block would need rectifying before works could commence in the property. The resident said that the contractor had told him that the concrete would need digging out and replacing. He said the property was unsafe to live in and he wanted compensation and a meeting with the landlord about what would happen next.
On 22 October 2019 the resident told the landlord he could not stay safely in the property and said he was incurring bills for a property he could not use. He stressed he was a vulnerable resident with mental health problems.
On 4 November 2019 the resident raised further complaints with the landlord saying that he was disappointed to learn that it had stopped working with the contractor and he would not therefore be getting a new bathroom and kitchen. He asked when these upgrades would take place. He added that nothing had been done to sort out the leaks in the bathroom. He asked that the landlord to include this issue in its formal complaint response.
The repairs log evidences that on 14 November 2019 the landlord attended the property and identified the following work: remove all vinyl flooring from hallway/ kitchen/ lounge and bedroom; remove all plywood flooring; investigate water ingress; repair/replace any leaking or rotten pipework; supply and fit new plywood flooring; supply and fit new vinyl flooring, It estimated that this would take five days to complete depending on what was found. It noted that the property might have to be left to dry out and de-humidifiers might be required.
On 27 January 2020 the landlord inspected the property and noted the work had been completed.
On 5 February 2020 the resident raised a further complaint with the landlord. He said he had not been able to access any of the rooms in the property for six months as the flooring was in disrepair and this continued even after repairs to the floor had carried out as they were not done properly.
On 6 February 2020 the landlord told the resident it would co-ordinate the bathroom work with the work to the flooring and the kitchen.
On 10 February 2020 the repair log evidences that plywood should be installed over the top of the channels and the floor levels were not even – this would need screeding. The log notes that this was completed on 18 September 2020.
In an internal email dated 1 October 2020 the landlord asked if any action had been taken on a kitchen and bathroom replacement for the resident as the contractor had surveyed the property prior to the lockdown. On 5 October 2020 the landlord noted that the property had been added to the kitchen and bathroom replacement programme.
On 3 December 2020, following contact from this Service in November 2020, the landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident under its formal complaint procedures. It said it was sorry that it was unable to resolve his concerns at the first stage of its complaints process. The main points were:
1. The resident had confirmed a conversation on 2 December 2020 that repairs to the living room floor had been undertaken on 18 September 2020 and had been fully completed. He was satisfied with the repairs carried out and no further works were required nor outstanding in relation to the flooring at the property.
2. The approach agreed for the completion of screeding works to the floor was to coordinate the work alongside the replacement of the bathroom. However, the replacement of the bathroom was delayed due to the resident’s dissatisfaction with works to the kitchen.
3. The resident considered the kitchen was unsafe and did not comply with health and safety regulations, as a result, he believed the kitchen would have to be replaced. The landlord said it did not agree or authorise for the kitchen to be replaced. It said its contractor had notified it on 6 February 2020 that the resident was refusing access to the property until it had agreed to replace the kitchen. The resident had repeated that to the landlord on 24 February 2020.
4. The UK went into lockdown soon after and the landlord said it only carried out emergency repairs during this time which contributed to further delays.
5. The landlord said it understood the resident was now in discussion with its major works team regarding the planned programmed bathroom and kitchen works and its surveyor had been in contact to arrange a survey of the window repairs throughout the property.
6. The landlord apologised that it had failed to respond to the resident’s complaint within its timescales. In recognition of the service failure, it offered £50 in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord said he should contact it if he remained dissatisfied.
On 30 December 2020 the landlord re-sent the complaint response to the resident as he had not received it. It signposted him to the Ombudsman.
On 30 December 2020 the resident told the landlord that he had not been able to live in the property since August 2019 due its failure to fix the floor after he had made it aware of this issue in January 2019. He said that, if the landlord had fixed the flooring properly, then further damage to the floor would not have occurred. He said he had had to pay all of his bills without the use of the property and did not see that £50 covered them.
On 12 February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord about the compensation offered.
On 24 February 2021 the landlord noted that it on 17 February 2021 it had told the resident that it had reviewed its complaint response and its response was final. However, it had said, as a goodwill gesture, it would increase the compensation offered from £50 to £250 for his time and effort whilst going through the complaint process made up of £50 for making the complaint and £200 for his time and effort. It noted the resident had refused that.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said that a new kitchen had been fitted but the landlord had not fitted a waste pipe for the washing machine so he could not use it. He said he was seeking an apology and compensation for the time he could not live in the property which amounted to about eighteen months. He said he was also seeking compensation for his increased water bills and explained that flooring problems had been caused by leaks from the bathroom. The resident said he was paying for the leaking water which meant that his water bills were much higher while the leaks continued and that he was in financial difficulties due to this.

Assessment and findings

Handling of flooring repairs to the property

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the flooring was not appropriate. In August 2019, when this matter was raised, it noted that the problem should be resolved urgently and the following month it was noted that the flooring was a trip hazard and a health and safety risk.
This Service has not seen the outcome of the damp inspection that the evidence suggests was carried out in October 2019 so are not aware of the extent of the work required to resolve matters. However, the repair log evidences that the flooring work had been completed by the end of January 2020. Even if these repairs were classed as major works, given the extent of the work required, the landlord exceeded the 90–calendar day timescale as set out in its repair policy (paragraph 4.c).
Despite the contractor’s view that the hole in the floor was a hazard, there was no evidence that the landlord considered a risk assessment of the hole in the floor or taking action to make it safe before the repair was carried out (for example by the installation of a barrier). While it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse a decant on the grounds that the repairs would not take a great length of time, there was action that it could have taken to ensure the resident felt safe in the property. The evidence suggests that the resident moved out of the property temporarily over the period when the repairs took place because he did not feel safe there.
While work was carried out and deemed to have been completed by the end of January 2020, further work was required which meant that the flooring issue was not completely resolved until September 2020. The Ombudsman acknowledges that, for part of the latter period, the action the landlord could take was limited by restrictions imposed by the pandemic and, once those restrictions had been lifted, the landlord would have had a backlog to have dealt with. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that the repair could and should have been resolved fully prior to the pandemic by ensuring the floor was level when the repairs were completed.
While the landlord offered compensation for pursuing the complaint (which is considered, below), it did not do so for its handling of the repairs. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
As a result of the landlord’s failure to take steps to make the property safe, the resident was left living in a property after it had been identified as a health and safety risk for some four months. The flooring issue took over just over a year to remedy fully. This evidently caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident given he felt unable to remain in the property. Financial compensation of £500 is appropriate here for that impact on the resident – £75 a month for the initial delay period (September 2019 to January 2020) given that the resident would have had to have lived with a hazard for that period and £200 for the failure to resolve matters fully at the earliest opportunity.
The resident raised with this Service the additional water charges be incurred due to the leaks (which he believed led to the problems with the flooring). There is no evidence that he has raised this with the landlord; therefore, I have made a recommendation, below, that it looks into this matter.

Response to the resident’s request for a new kitchen and bathroom

The kitchen and bathroom replacements were added to the major works programme in October 2020. Given that the landlord was only carrying out emergency repairs from March 2020 because of the pandemic it is reasonable that this would have caused a slight delay to these planned works. The resident has since told the Ombudsman that a new kitchen has been installed but says there is no waste pipe for the washing machine. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to look into this issue.
The evidence suggests that there was delay to the bathroom replacement as the resident was not satisfied with the kitchen. The final response suggests that this has now been resolved and the resident was in talks with the appropriate team. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen and bathroom was appropriate.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s handling of the complaint was not appropriate. The stage one response that was issued in September 2019 was within the timescales in the complaint procedures (paragraph 7). However, two further complaints from the resident that were made in November 2019 and February 2020 were not responded to. A final response was issued in December 2020 only after the resident had approached this Service for assistance.
The landlord has offered the resident £250 for the time and trouble in making and pursuing the complaint. The Ombudsman considers that that sum is proportionate to the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of flooring repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of response to the resident’s request for a new kitchen and bathroom.

Reasons

There was delay by the landlord in resolving problems with the flooring in the property over a long period of time. While it was reasonable to refuse a decant, the landlord could have taken action to ensure the property was safe for the resident while awaiting repair.
The landlord did not respond to two complaints raised by the resident and only issued a final response after intervention by this Service. The landlord offered compensation of £250 which was considered to be appropriate redress.
There is no evidence of any maladministration in replacement of the kitchen and bathroom while it is acknowledged that some delay occurred due to the pandemic.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders;
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £500 for the impact caused to him by the delays and failures in resolving the flooring problems.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £250 that it previously offered for the impact on the resident by its complaint handling failure (if it has not paid this sum already).
2. Ask the resident for evidence of his excess water bills and consider if these were caused by the internal leaks in the property. If appropriate, financial compensation should be paid to the resident.
3. Investigates the lack of a waste pipe for the washing machine in the new kitchen (if this has not been addressed already).