Wandle Housing Association Limited (202200752)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200752

Wandle Housing Association Limited

15 May 2023

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:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property’s basement.
2. The repairs to plasterwork in a bedroom.
3. The associated complaints.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a two-bedroom ground-floor flat, that has a basement.
This report covers two formal complaints made by the resident to the landlord, for which it issued its final responses on 18 May 2021 and 18 February 2022 respectively.
The resident reports that she raised the issue of damp at the rear wall of her basement to her landlord on 15 February 2021. She raised a stage one complaint on 19 March 2021 regarding her basement stop tap/stopcock and damp at rear wall of basement. The resident said that she was dissatisfied that she was unable to make use of her basement due to the damp issue, which she stated the landlord had failed to acknowledge or rectify.
The landlord’s issued its stage one to the resident’s report on 7 April 2021. The response letter stated that one of its operatives would contact her to inspect the damp in the basement.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 18 May 2021. The final stage complaint response stated that its operative was unable to see damp within the basement, just a darker shade of render. It explained to her that basements were not deemed as habitable living spaces and are therefore not subject to repairs, apart from those which are emergencies. It stated it had acted in line with its policies and apologised that she was disappointed in its service.
On 19 November 2021, the landlord raised a repair order for an operative to inspect a bedroom in the resident’s property and “plaster if required”. The operative attended her property on 15 December 2021 and reported that the wall did not require plastering, and the works were decorative. They informed the resident that the landlord did not perform decorative works.
The resident raised a new stage one complaint with the landlord on the same day, because she was dissatisfied that the operative had not carried out the plastering works, despite her reporting that she had previously been advised they would take place, and that she had taken a day off work for this reason. She reported that the room was unusable, sought for it to be plastered and wanted reimbursement of her lost wages for the day. She also wanted clarification as to why the communication to her and the operative was different and reported that the operative who had attended had been rude to her.
On 13 January 2022, as she had not received a stage one complaint response to the complaint regarding the plasterwork, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure. She further reported that the operative who had attended her property was “abrasive”. She later confirmed that her main issue was the miscommunication; that she had been informed that the plastering works would occur, while the operative was given the authority to inspect and decide on the day if the works were needed.
The landlord issued its final stage complaint response regarding the plasterwork repairs on 18 February 2022. It apologised that it was unable to resolve her complaint at stage one of the complaints procedure. It did not uphold her complaint in regard to the plastering works, and it advised her that photos of the bedroom wall were reviewed by a manager who agreed that plastering works were not required, and that the works were decorative, which it explained were the responsibility of the resident. It further apologised for any offence its staff members had caused and stated that this was not their intention. It acknowledged that it had not responded to her complaint within its timescales and offered her £50 compensation for this.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service because she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had concluded the plastering works were cosmetic and stated that she believed them to not be. She also reported that it had not provided her with copies of the policies that it had referred to in its final stage complaint response.
The resident also complained to this Service that two contractors of the landlord inspected the basement in February and March 2022, and determined, using damp meters, that there was rising damp in the basement. She reported that she informed the landlord on 20 April 2022 that she had an issue with damp in the basement. She requested assistance from this Service as her landlord was “not cooperative” and she sought for it to repair the damp before it rose to other areas of her house.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property’s basement

In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs the structure and exterior of the property. Therefore, if rising damp was found to be in the resident’s basement, then it would be responsible for its repair, despite the fact the landlord explained that it would not be, as she does not pay rent on this space, as the basement forms the structure of the property. This Service would also expect the landlord to address this issue as, according to the Decent Homes Standard, damp and mould within a property is a potential hazard to the resident’s health and safety.
The landlord has a duty, as identified above, to ensure that the resident’s property is free of damp, including rising damp. It is therefore unreasonable that its final stage complaint response stated that being as the basement is not deemed a habitable space, it is not subject to repairs apart from emergency repairs to existing pipe work.
On 27 May 2022, the resident reported to this Service, that the landlord’s inspection in April 2021 included only a visual inspection of the area, and that this did not identify damp in her property.She further explained that two external contractors attended in February and March 2022 to survey the cellar. She reports that both contractors found rising damp and had used damp meters.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate 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.
There are no records of either the landlord’s visits, or of the visits conducted by the contractors. The majority of the information that was made available to the investigation of this complaint, was from the landlord’s complaint responses and from the resident’s complaint to this Service. This is not primary or contemporaneous evidence and is further complicated by the unclear dates of the complaint responses. It is not clear to this Service whether the stage one and final stage complaint responses were issued on their respective dates, in 2021 or 2022. This report is therefore unable to determine whether the landlord acted appropriately in the circumstances at the time, in relation to the resident’s reports.
This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping, and it has therefore been ordered below to conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said, dates that responses were issues and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.
Moreover, this Service requested that the landlord clarify the details of the dates that the letters were provided to the resident during this investigation. It responded to this Service’s first and second information requests but clarified details of the resident’s complaint regarding the plasterwork. When this Service requested further clarification, it did not provide a response, which is a further failing in its record keeping and communication of such records.
The landlord is also ordered to perform a survey of the resident’s basement, to determine whether the resident’s concerns of rising damp are valid. If rising damp is found, then it shall perform the necessary repairs to the structure of the property, to treat this, and prevent future reoccurrence.
Furthermore, its handling of the damp and mould was disappointing, as even though we are unsure of when events occurred, there is a noticeable lack of investigation, or concern over the resident’s reports of what could have been a health hazard. This Service’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould 2021 states “Landlords should consider their current approach to record keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust. We would encourage landlords to go further and consider whether their record keeping systems and processes support a risk-based approach to damp and mould.” The landlord has therefore been ordered below to review its staff training in regard to their handling of reports on damp and mould in view of this Service’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould.
In light of the failings identified above, the landlord has been ordered to pay £200 compensation to the resident. The lack of a consistent and comprehensive response from the landlord led to uncertainty for the resident, and her expenditure of time and trouble in seeking clarity on whether damp was present. The compensation is also awarded in recognition of its failure to keep full records of its assessment of the reported damp, which has meant that this Service is unable to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its obligations, and the current condition of the resident’s property. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggests compensation from £100 where there has been a failure in service by the landlord which has adversely affected the resident.
It is noted that the resident has reported rising damp within the property, and that it has been over a year since the plasterwork (discussed further below) was last inspected by the landlord. While there is no indication from the evidence that the plasterwork is linked to the reported rising damp issue, it would be appropriate for the landlord to return to her property and inspect this, to ensure that these issues are not linked. It has therefore been recommended to do so below.

The repairs to plasterwork in a bedroom

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy outlines that internal decorative works are the responsibility of the resident, and that appointed repairs, which are repairs that are not classed as an emergency, should be completed within 28 calendar days of being logged by the landlord.
It was reasonable that the landlord raised a repair order when the resident contacted it about her plasterwork issue in her property’s bedroom and arranged an appointment for 26 calendar days after it had been logged. This was within the timescales set out in its repairs and maintenance policy. It also communicated this appointment to the resident in an email, which informed the resident of the date and time for her appointment, and the description of the repair which stated “The plaster is peeling away in son’s bedroom. This is around the bottom half of the bedroom walls which needs skimming all around the walls. The room is unusable at present.”
When deciding on how best to proceed with the repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the landlord’s operative concluded that the plaster was “absolutely fine” and therefore the works would not be completed, as it was a decorative issue, which was the responsibility of the resident. It is reasonable that the operative informed the resident of this, as it managed her expectations at the first opportunity.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction that no plastering work was undertaken during the appointment which she had taken time off work for, and that the operative took photographs of the wall, which she reported she could have sent to the landlord. However, this action of the operative’s was appropriate, as it allowed them to discuss the repair work with a manager, to ensure they had arrived at the correct decision, which the manager agreed they had. This was reasonable, as it meant there did not need to be a further visit to inspect the plaster, which would have caused further inconvenience time and trouble to her.
The resident has stated she would like to be reimbursed for loss-of-earnings, because the landlord did not complete the work that she was expecting. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will consider awarding compensation when there has been a service failure, and this includes “specific financial loss”. However, the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint, or identify any failings in its service, so it is therefore reasonable that it did not offer her compensation for her loss of earnings.
The resident also reported that she was concerned about the communication between the landlord, its staff, and how this communication differed between the communication that she received. Its final stage complaint response explained that a repair order was raised instructing the plasterer to skim the walls in the bedroom, but that this was later amended to “plaster if required” in order to ensure it adhered to its repairs policy. This is not unreasonable, and the landlord attempted to manage the resident’s expectations by informing her on the day why it was not performing the plastering works.
The resident also reported that the operative was “rude” and that their attitude was “abrasive”. It should be noted that perceptions of behaviour may be subjective, and in the absence of independent third-party evidence to support a report it is not possible to determine whether the operative behaved in appropriately.
When the landlord receives a report about its staff’s conduct, the Ombudsman would expect to investigate the matter, based on the available evidence, and to provide its findings to the resident in a timely manner. It offered her the operative and repair manager’s apology and stated that it was not their intention to offend her. This indicates that, while the landlord did not provide evidence of its investigation, it spoke with the staff involved to understand what occurred. It is reasonable, in light of the lack of independent evidence, that it offered her their apology, as well as an apology on behalf of the landlord, and sympathised that she found the experience “unpleasant”.
It is noted that the resident has reported rising damp within the property, and that it has been over a year since the plasterwork was last inspected by the landlord. While there is no indication from the evidence that the damp is linked to the reported rising damp issue, it would be appropriate for the landlord to return to her property and inspect this, to ensure that these issues are not linked. It has therefore been recommended to do so below.

The associated complaints

The landlord failed to acknowledge and provide a stage one complaint response to the resident’s stage one complaint of 15 December 2021 about the handling of her plasterwork repair. This is a failing in its complaint handling as per its complaints policy, as it is expected to acknowledge stage one complaints within five working days and respond within ten working days. This caused further inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident as she had to submit a further complaint on 13 January 2022, in which she requested her complaint be escalated to the final stage of the complaints procedure.
The landlord provided the final stage complaint response on 18 February 2022, which was 26 working days after she had requested her complaint be escalated. This is a 6 working day delay because, in line with its complaint policy, the landlord should have responded within 20 working days, or write to inform the that it cannot meet this deadline, which it did not do.
The landlord’s final stage complaint response on 18 February 2022, about the plasterwork repair, apologised that it was unable to resolve her complaint at the first stage of its complaint procedure and acknowledged that it had not responded within its standard timescales, and thanked the resident for her patience. It awarded £50 compensation to her, in recognition of the delay in responding to her complaint.
This offer was in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, available to view online. This provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £100 where a failure occurred which did not have a significant impact on the overall outcome for the resident, but which caused detriment to her; in this case, the delayed resolution of her complaint.
While the landlord acknowledged its failing in the handling of the plasterwork complaint and offered a reasonable amount of compensation, when a landlord is at fault, it should also explain why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent repeating the fault. The landlord failed to show how it would prevent similar future mistakes. It has therefore been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaint policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code, in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling delays in her case from occurring again in the future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property’s basement.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to plasterwork in a bedroom.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered the resident redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the associated complaints satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £250 total compensation, this is broken down as:
  1. £200 in recognition of its failure to keep full records, which has meant that this Service is unable to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its obligations, and the current condition of the resident’s property.
  2. The £50 that it had previously offered her if she has not received this already.
2. Conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said, dates that responses were issues and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.
3. Perform a survey of the resident’s basement, to determine whether the resident’s concerns of rising damp are valid. If rising damp is found, then it shall perform the necessary repairs to the structure of the property, to treat this, and prevent future reoccurrence.
4. Review its staff training in regard to their handling of reports on damp and mould in view of this Service’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould, which can be found at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Spotlight-report-Damp-and-mould-final.pdf.
5. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the following recommendations.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Inspect the plasterwork in the resident’s bedroom, to ensure that this issue is not linked to the reported rising damp.
2. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaint policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code, in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling delays in her case from occurring again in the future.