Wandle Housing Association Limited (202009428)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009428

Wandle Housing Association Limited

15 November 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Request for new windows.
   3. Concerns about a named staff member.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction – the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. Paragraph 42(a) says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
5. In January 2019 the resident raised a disrepair claim. She moved out of the property while repairs were carried out. The Ombudsman has seen an agreement dated 29 September 2022 which said the resident had agreed to accept compensation of £5,148 from the landlord in full and final settlement of her claim for housing disrepair. This suggests that there was a legally binding agreement in so far as the terms were kept, that is, the compensation paid.
6. The resident was represented by a housing rights worker who confirmed to the landlord’s solicitors that the resident had agreed to this amount. We have seen that, when the housing rights worker asked the resident to read and sign the agreement, she did not agree. She explained that she had understood this sum was compensation only for damaged items. She added that she wanted compensation of £15,000 and would be prepared to go to court. The landlord paid the resident £5,148 (less an amount for rent arrears). The Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord was aware that the resident did not agree with the compensation offered; however, we note the Minutes of Agreement were not signed by her.
7. The landlord has not considered its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould as a formal complaint because it believed this had been resolved through its solicitors. The Ombudsman cannot usually investigate where a complaint issue has not completed the landlord’s internal complaint procedures.
8. Given all the circumstances of this case, it would be fair to give the landlord an opportunity to investigate this matter now. A recommendation has been made for it to do so and to focus on the amount of compensation paid. It is open to the resident to return to the Ombudsman should she remain unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response.
9. This report will therefore focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for new windows and her concerns about the named staff member.

Background and summary of events

Background

10. The resident has an assured tenancy that started in late 2001. The property is a four-bedroom house. The landlord told the Ombudsman it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
11. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord has an obligation to maintain the structure and outside of the building. This includes windows (the sills, catches, sash cords and frames).
12. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that it will undertake a range of improvement works in addition to maintenance; primarily these will involve whole component upgrades, including the replacement of windows. The policy adds that, in undertaking responsive repairs, consideration will be given to any programmed or pending planned maintenance on the property. One of two approaches will be adopted; either a temporary repair will be made until the programme is due or the programme will be brought forward if it is uneconomic not to do so.
13. The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy. It aims to respond within ten working days at stage one and within twenty working days at stage two.

Summary of events

14. On 25 February 2019 a building survey was carried out on the property which identified disrepair. The landlord subsequently carried out the required works as recommended in that survey report during 2022 and we understand that the property was ready by October 2022 at the latest.
15. On 10 June 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She explained that she had been told the previous year that the windows would be replaced but, despite multiple visits from operatives and surveyors, that had not happened. The resident also noted that she was asthmatic, and the windows were mouldy and damaged which made her asthma worse.
16. In its stage one response of 16 June 2021, the landlord said it had found no record of it advising the resident that a full window replacement was required; however, remedial works would be undertaken as part the disrepair remedial works as identified in the single joint expert report. The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
17. In an internal email of 19 November 2021, following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord noted it had spoken to the resident and noted she also wanted to escalate her complaint about the named member of staff.  She said that they had spoken to her in a way that was “unacceptable and disgusting” and wanted an assurance that they would never be in contact with her again or have anything to do with her case. The Ombudsman was not provided with a stage one complaint response relating to this issue.
18. On 16 December 2021 the landlord issued its final response under its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
    1. It should have provided further information on the repairs to be carried out on the windows, as they were not due to be replaced until 2031. However, there were repairs required and it would replace defective window handles and replace the locking mechanisms where applicable.
    2. The named staff member would have no further contact with the resident.
19. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
20. On 4 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s solicitors about matters she considered outstanding. On the same day they responded saying that the windows had been checked and there were no defects; they asked her to report any new disrepair issues to the landlord in the normal way.
21. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said she wanted the landlord to fix the remaining issues in the property and she wanted an apology for the way she had been treated by the named staff member. She also expressed fire safety concerns about the windows as a lack of handles meant they did not open as she believed they should. The resident also told us that she did not believe the landlord had dealt with all the complaints she had raised with it.

Assessment and findings

Scope

22. In her communication with us, the resident has mentioned that she has asthma and high blood pressure which have been made worse by her housing issues. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

The resident’s request for new windows

23. In its complaint handling the landlord explained that the windows were not due for replacement until 2031. It explained that it would carry out repairs to make the windows secure in the meantime. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident was given an assurance that the windows would be replaced.
24. The approach taken by the landlord was appropriate because it was in line with its repairs policy which says that pending replacement works, it can carry out temporary repairs until the replacement programme is due.
25. If there are ongoing defects with the windows, the resident should raise these (or any other repairs) with the landlord so that it can investigate and take action in line with its repairing obligations. A recommendation has been made, below, for the landlord to look into the resident’s fire safety concerns about a lack of handles which means not all the windows open as they should.

Interaction with a named staff member

26. The Ombudsman understands that this issue concerns a named staff member that the resident says shouted at her and was rude and abusive.
27. The Ombudsman is not in a position to make a determination on the nature or intent of the named member of staff’s actions, as there is no evidence of what happened at the time of the incident. In such circumstances, we cannot reach a firm conclusion on what happened. Instead, our role is to consider all the circumstances of the case and reach a finding on whether the landlord’s actions in response to the concerns raised by the resident were fair and reasonable.
28. The Ombudsman has not seen any investigation of the allegations made by the resident. In such circumstances we would expect the landlord to undertake a thorough investigation by discussing the allegations made with both the resident, the named member of staff and any witnesses to try to establish what happened and, if appropriate, take reasonable steps in order to mitigate any future instances.
29. In its complaint handling, the landlord confirmed that the named staff member would have no further contact with the resident. That was a reasonable response to the concerns raised. However, the landlord’s apparent failure to investigate meant that an opportunity was lost to identify whether or not there had been a failing in its customer service and, if so, to offer redress. That is a service failure. The events complained about are now almost two years old and it is unlikely an investigation by the landlord at this stage would reach any firm conclusions due to the time that has passed.
30. 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 this instance, while we cannot say with any certainty what the outcome of any investigation might have been, an opportunity has been lost to investigate and potentially bring closure to the resident on this issue. Financial compensation of £150 is appropriate for the evident frustration and inconvenience this caused the resident.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about an interaction with a named staff member.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for replacement windows.
33. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction – the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Reasons

34. The landlord’s decision to carry out repairs to the windows was appropriate given the works to replace them is not due until 2031. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to address the resident’s fire safety concerns.
35. The landlord acted reasonably in deciding that the named staff member would no longer have any contact with the resident; however, we have seen no evidence that it investigated what had happened. That meant the landlord lost an opportunity to identify whether or not there had been a failing in its customer service and, if so, to offer a remedy for that.

Orders

36. The landlord should 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 relating to her complaint about the named staff member.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £150 for the impact of the service failing relating to the named staff member.

Recommendations

37. It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
    1. Address the resident’s fire safety concerns about a lack of handles which means not all the windows open as they should.
    2. Ensure that it has dealt with all complaints raised by the resident in line with its formal complaints procedure.
    3. Investigate the resident’s complaint about the amount of compensation paid for its handling of her reports of damp and mould.