Wandle Housing Association Limited (202206590)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206590

Wandle Housing Association Limited

25 January 2024

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 response to:
1. Reports of repairs to a decant property.
2. The resident’s concerns about the length of time he was decanted.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. He occupied the decant property under a licence. The original property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident told us that he has mobility issues and is elderly.
Under the assured tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property as well as, among other things, the window frames and sills; inside walls, floors and ceilings. The landlord is also responsible for the keeping in and proper working order any installation it provides for space heating, water heating and sanitation as well as for the supply of water, gas and electricity. This reflects the obligations set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The licence agreement said the resident should abide by the terms of their existing tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy has 3 categories of repair:
1. Emergency – to be completed within 24 hours. This includes the complete loss of heating in the winter where no alternate heat source is available (emergency action may include the provision of temporary heating) and a complete loss of hot water at any time.
2. Appointed – to be completed within a maximum of 28 days in 2021; and within a maximum of 21 days from April 2022.
3. Major works – to be completed within a maximum of 90 days.
The policy says the time to respond to an emergency for heating and hot water loss during the winter period is 4 hours. The primary objective of attending an emergency repair is to make safe and a full repair will be undertaken at this point wherever practical, this is particularly the case in heating defects. However, it may be necessary and is acceptable to return at a later date to complete a full repair for which a further appointment would be made.
The landlord’s decant policy says that it aims to cause the least possible disturbance to residents who are obliged to decant, and the landlord will ensure the safety of its residents by decanting them while essential repairs are carried out. The policy adds that the landlord will always provide suitable alternative accommodation when decanting residents. It says that, once the decant has been confirmed and agreed with the resident, appropriate arrangements for the works should be made and the repairs should then proceed.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. The policy says that the landlord will only log complaints where it has evidence of service failure that has occurred within six months unless there is a health and safety concern.
The complaints policy also says that, where things go wrong, it will acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intend to take, to put things right. This can include actions such as acknowledging where things have gone wrong; providing and explanation, assistance, or reasons; an apology; undertaking repairs; and providing compensation. The policy says that, when considering a remedy, it will consider matters such as the length of time the situation has been ongoing; the severity of any service failure or omission; the cumulative impact on the customer and their particular circumstances or vulnerabilities.
In July 2020 the Ombudsman issued a new Complaint Handling Code which set out good practice that allows landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly.

Summary of events

On 15 November 2019 the resident’s solicitors brought a claim for disrepair in respect of the main property. (This disrepair claim is currently in the stages of being settled outside court. The disrepair to the main property does not part of this complaint.)
On 13 January 2020 a contractor gave the landlord a quote to re-level the flooring at the property.
On 17 February 2022 the resident’s solicitor raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the handling of repairs to the decant property and asked when the repairs would be completed to the original property. They gave a timeline in relation to the decant including:
1. On 11 August 2021 a possible decant property for the resident was identified.
2. On 25 August 2021 the resident had viewed the decant property and said he would accept it, subject to some repairs being completed.
3. On 27 September 2021 the landlord asked if the resident would want to make a permanent move to the decant property.
4. In early October 2021 the works had been completed and the decant property was ready to move into.
5. At the end of October 2021, the resident visited the decant property again and identified that some works had not been completed namely:
  1. The radiator in the bedroom had been removed.
  2. External drainpipes were not discharging into a drain but into a drum. That drum was full to the brim with “stagnant, smelly water”.
6. On 4 November 2021 the resident’s solicitor raised a report of a cracked window at the decant property with the landlord. The landlord said it would speak to the repairs team.
7. On 10 November 2021 the resident moved into the decant property and the following day raised a number of concerns including the cracked window.
8. On 6 December 2021 the repair to the cracked window was still outstanding.
9. On 19 January 2022 the resident’s solicitor asked for an update and said the rear drain of the decant property was backing up.
In an internal email of 17 February 2022, the landlord noted the complaint. One of its legal caseworkers said they understood that its solicitors were still instructed and would check.
Some five months later on 18 July 2022, following contact from the resident’s solicitor, we asked the landlord to respond to the complaint of February 2022. At the end of September 2022, we chased this matter up with the landlord.
In an internal email of 13 October 2022, the landlord noted that it had opened a stage 1 complaint in February 2022; however, the legal caseworker at the time did not believe that it should have been dealt with through the complaints process and a response was not issued. It noted that the complaint should have been dealt with and it had decided to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
On 26 October 2022 we issued a complaint handling failure order because the landlord had failed to respond to the complaint.
In an exchange of emails on 31 October 2022 between the landlord’s solicitor and its in-house disrepair team it was noted that the resident was currently without heating and hot water as a result of a condemned boiler and that this should be looked at as soon as possible.
On 4 November 2022 the resident’s solicitor told us that the resident had been without heating and hot water in the decant property for over two weeks since the boiler was condemned.
On 10 November 2022 the landlord’s solicitor noted that it should get the case settled to include a permanent transfer for the resident to the decant property as part of that settlement. It noted that that would “simplify the settlement as we won’t have to worry about any works at [the main property] which still remain outstanding”.
On 11 November 2022 the landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident under its formal complaint procedures. The main points were:
1. It apologised for the unacceptable service it had given and the lack of communication with respect to the repairs and complaint escalation and for the inconvenience caused.
2. The resident’s complaint escalation request was not actioned because the complaint handler had misinterpreted its complaints processes. It said that that member of staff had left the organisation and that had impacted on the time it had taken it to address the resident’s concerns.
3. It had offered the resident alternative accommodation for the duration of the works as part of his disrepair claim which concerned the levelling of uneven flooring. The landlord said these works were still outstanding after “a wholly unacceptable period” and it had not communicated with him about this.
4. It had instructed its contractor that day to attend the property, lift all the floorboards and re-level them. The works would start on 21 November 2022 and would take about 3 to 4 weeks.
5. Its surveyor would attend the property on 15 November 2022 to ensure that there were no additional repairs required and that the property would be fit to move back into once the re-levelling of the floor had been completed.
6. It apologised that it had failed to address issues with the boiler at the decant property and that the resident was not left with temporary heating whilst it was sourcing parts. As a result of this service failure, the resident had purchased his own heaters. The landlord said this was a failing on its part and it would reimburse the cost of purchasing the two heaters.
7. It had discussed this with its gas contracts manager would take steps to ensure that did not happen again. Its contractor would also be visiting the property on 14 November to survey for a replacement boiler, as the existing boiler was nearing the end of its life.
8. In relation to repairs to the downpipe at the decant property, its surveyor would attend on 15 November 2022 with its contractor to ensure the water butt was removed and the rainwater goods repaired.
9. It offered the resident the following redress:
  1. £500 for the “inconvenience caused due to the time it has taken for us to resolve your concerns”.
  2. £150 as reimbursement for the purchase of 2 temporary heaters which cost £75 each.
The landlord noted that these payments were in addition to any settlement agreed in his disrepair claim. It signposted the resident to this Service.
On 18 November 2022 the landlord confirmed that a new boiler had been installed at the decant property that day.
On 30 November 2022 the landlord told its solicitor that that works to the decant property had been completed and would be inspected shortly. It added that the resident wanted to remain in the decant property and that would need to be reflected as part of the settlement agreement.
On 8 December 2022 the landlord told its solicitor that the surveyor had inspected the decant property and all works had been completed apart from the drains which would be jetted on 19 December 2022.
On 24 January 2023 the landlord noted that the resident did not want a permanent move to the decant property.
On 10 February 2023 the landlord noted that works to the property would likely commence early March.
On 14 February 2023 the resident’s solicitors told us about events that had happened after the final complaint response and said that, to date, no notice had been given that the works at the original property had been completed. They said that the resident “has now been decanted in unsatisfactory accommodation for almost 16 months”.
On 12 March 2023 the landlord told us that the works at the original property were due to commence on 6 March 2023 or possibly earlier depending on the contractor’s availability. It said that no agreement had been reached with regards to compensation or costs and those negotiations were continuing.
When the resident’s solicitor approached this Service, they said that along with the repairs to the decant property she would like us to address the length of time the resident had been in the decant property which was only supposed to be for 3 to 4 weeks as this was not included in the disrepair claim. She confirmed the resident had moved back into the property in June 2023. The solicitor explained the length of the decant had caused a great deal of distress, frustration and inconvenience to the resident and said he was seeking compensation.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs to the decant property

Section 11 does not apply to licence agreements including the decant. The licence agreement in this case was silent on repairs; however, there was nothing to suggest that the repairs policy did not apply to the decant property.
The evidence shows that the landlord acted appropriately by completing required repairs to the decant property after the resident confirmed it was suitable for him. The evidence suggests that there was one outstanding repair when he moved in on10 November 2021 – a crack in a bedroom window. However, two months later the problems with the blocked drain happened again. The landlord did not take action to resolve these matters until the end of November 2022. These delays of almost 12 and 10 months, respectively, to carry out these repairs was not appropriate as they were not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy in place at the time.
In October 2022 the boiler at the decant property was condemned. In its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to address issues with the boiler and that the resident was not left with temporary heating whilst it was sourcing parts. As the landlord acknowledged in its complaint response, its handling of the boiler repair was not appropriate.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord reimbursed the resident the cost of the temporary heaters and decided to install a new boiler which were reasonable steps to take to resolve this matter. The landlord offered the resident £500 for the inconvenience caused to him due to the time it had taken to resolve his concerns. This wording suggests that this sum was compensation for its complaint handling failures, rather than the delay in completing the repairs. We have considered complaint handling further, below.
The delay in completing these repairs in the decant property caused evident distress and frustration to the resident. Financial compensation of £500 is appropriate here as follows:
1. 11 months delay for the cracked window at £10 a month – £110.
2. 9-month delay for the blocked drain at £10 a month – £90.
3. Approximate 4-week delay in resolving the condemned boiler which left the resident without heating and hot water at £75 a week – £300.

Response to concerns about the length of time the resident was decanted

The evidence shows that the resident moved into the decant property on 10 November 2021. In its complaint response, the landlord said the works to the main property were due to start in November 2022; however, the evidence suggests that they did not start until at least March 2023. The resident was therefore decanted for some 19 months for a repair that took one month.
The evidence suggests that part of the delay was because there was uncertainty about whether or not the resident would decide to move to the decant property on a permanent basis. Nonetheless, it was not reasonable for the landlord to put the works on hold on this basis. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the works at the main property were still outstanding “after a wholly unacceptable period” and accepted that the resident had had no communication from it about that.
While the landlord acknowledged its poor handling of the decant and its poor communication. There is no evidence it considered the impact of this on the resident and whether compensation was appropriate. That was a failing.
It is evident that the length of the decant would have caused the resident great inconvenience and distress – he was away from his home for a significant period which would have disrupted his life and routine and his belongings were in storage. The acknowledged lack of communication about the repair to the main property would have caused the resident further frustration and inconvenience. Financial compensation of £720 is appropriate for the full impact on the resident which includes the length of the decant as well as the lack of communication about the repair to the main property. This has been calculated at £40 a month for 18 months.
A finding of severe maladministration has been made here because of the landlord’s lack of communication, its failure to engage with the complaint and take appropriate action in relation to the repairs. This meant that, even after the landlord considered the complaint and accepted that mistakes had been made, the lack of substantive action on the repairs meant that the resident was still unable to return to the main property until some seven months after the date of the final complaint response.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate because it did not issue a stage 1 complaint response in line with its complaints policy. The landlord did not engage with the complaint after our initial contact. Following further contact from us, the landlord decided to progress the complaint direct to stage 2.
Our view is that a complaints procedure with only 1 stage poses a number of risks and does not allow sufficient opportunity for residents to respond to the landlord’s position, particularly where this includes information that may be new to the resident. Having a further stage allows for a review at a more senior level which may bring a wider perspective and level of expertise to a complaint and may also ensure full consideration of both sides of the complaint. Such senior reviews also provide an opportunity for landlords to spot patterns, nip issues in the bud and to learn from outcomes.
It took the landlord almost 9 months to respond to the complaint. That was a serious service failure. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling. It gave an explanation for that, saying it was due to an error by a member of staff. It awarded £500 for the delay in addressing the resident’s concerns.
Had the landlord acted appropriately, the resident would have received a final complaint response at around the end of March 2022 therefore there was a delay of at least 7 months. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord in this instance is appropriate and proportionate redress for the evident frustration, inconvenience and distress this delay caused. Had the complaint been considered sooner, it is likely the move back into the main property would have happened more quickly.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the length of time he was decanted
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of repairs to the decant property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (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 its complaint handling.

Reasons

As the landlord has acknowledged, there was a significant delay in carrying out delays to the main property as well as a lack of communication with the resident. The landlord did not consider compensation for the impact of those failings.
The landlord’s response to the reports of repairs at the decant were not appropriate. There were delays and it failed to offer temporary heaters to the resident. While the landlord reimbursed the cost of those heaters, it did not consider compensation for the impact of those delays.
The landlord acknowledged complaint handling failures and offered £500 for the delay in addressing the resident’s concerns. That sum is appropriate as it adequately reflects the frustration, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance of these orders to us:
1. Write to the resident with an apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £1,220 made up of:
  1. £500 for the impact of the delays in carrying out repairs in the decant property.
  2. £720 for the inconvenience caused by the length of the impact.
3. Carry out staff training to ensure that all staff are familiar with its complaints procedure, in particular, with reference to disrepair claims.
Compensation amounts should be paid direct to the landlord and not off-set against any arrears in line with our guidance on redress.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord pays the resident:
1. The sum of £500 that it offered in its complaint response to reflect the complaint handling delay, if it has not done so already.
2. The sum of £150 for the reimbursement of the cost of the temporary heaters, if it has not done so already.
The finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis of that sum being paid.