Wandle Housing Association Limited (202012550)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012550

Wandle Housing Association Limited

1 August 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s assertion that his property was illegal and in breach of the Decent Homes Standard, the Building Act 1984, and unsafe in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an Assured tenant occupying a one-bedroom property.

Scope

While the resident has advised this Service that the issues he is complaining about date as far back as 2011, this investigation will not seek to consider the landlord’s handling of matters from this date. This is as any dissatisfaction with the landlord’s Service over the course of this period should have been brought to its attention as a formal complaint, and escalated with this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied.
This Service is aware that in 2019, the resident did pursue a complaint about the landlord’s handling of historic repairs which he brought to this Service (case reference 201909282). On 21 November 2019, however, he advised this Service that he did not want to proceed with an investigation. This case was subsequently closed and due to the length of time that has now passed, will not be reopened. The Ombudsman notes that the resident was advised of the scope of this complaint on 9 November 2021.
In considering the evidence on file, this Service has also identified that several complaints were made to the local authority in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of poor living conditions, an alleged illegal property under the Building Act 1984, its inability to share building control records, difficulties experienced with its benefit office, and alleged institutional racism. As there was no landlord/tenant relationship between the resident and the local authority, however, this Service is unable to comment on how the local authority responded to these comments.
It is unclear whether the resident pursued his complaints with the local authority, and therefore whether he exhausted its complaints process. In any case, any further dissatisfaction with its response (or lack of) should have been raised with the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO). As per paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, this Service will not investigate matters which properly fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman.
Moreover, in correspondence shared with this Service on 8 December 2021, the resident raised an issue concerning his toilet which he stated he had been unable to flush since October 2021. As this was a new repair issue, however, this too would not form part of the Ombudsman’s investigation. If the resident has not done so already but wishes to pursue this issue, he will need to raise this with the landlord in the first instance.
Finally, as the resident had not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure at the time of bringing his complaint to this Service, his complaint about the landlord’s handling of his rent account has not be included as part of this investigation. The resident will be aware, however, that as he has since received the landlord’s final response, the matter is being considered by this Service under a separate reference (202120822).

Summary of events

On 2 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord’s Chief Executive (as well as several other parties, including the local authority) expressing dissatisfaction with his living conditions. He advised:
1. The property had improper insulation in the loft and was therefore in breach of “the Building Act 1984” and “the Dangerous Building Act 1984”. He asserted that his property was an illegal dwelling.
2. He believed that he had been subject to institutional racism, given that his neighbours who were Eastern European were not living in the same conditions.
3. He raised queries about the loft space and the partitioning walls. He stated that one area of his property was uninhabitable due to the cold.
4. The poor insulation also made the property damp. The cold / damp had been impacting his wellbeing for 10 years and made the bath and toilet unbearable to use.
5. There was water ingress through a hole in the loft space.
6. There was no front window and no appropriate British Standard Electrical Wiring certification.
7. The property posed serious hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This was raised during a health and safety inspection undertaken by Environmental Health Officers in September 2020.
8. Black and blue plastic was being used to cover up openings in the roof. This was a fire hazard / health and safety risk which also caused damp and mould growth in the living room. There was also damp in the bedroom area.
9. Stock depreciation over ten years meant that the kitchen surfaces were deteriorating.
This Service can see that the landlord therefore confirmed that it would consider the resident’s comments under its complaints process on 5 January 2021. On the same day, however, the resident advised the landlord against this. He explained that he instead sought for the recipients of his correspondence to offer a remedy and requested that the landlord not obstruct his communication with those he believed to be accountable for the system of processes.
The landlord subsequently confirmed on 20 January 2021 that the complaint would be closed. This Service understands that at this time (in separate correspondence that has not been shared), the resident was advised to set out any further issues he remained dissatisfied with (if any) and the outcome he sought. On or around this time, the resident was also advised that arrangements had been made for a specialist surveyor to carry out an inspection on 3 February 2021. The resident was advised to allow a few weeks for the landlord to receive the report and to establish what follow-on / recommendations had been made.
On 10 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident following his enquiry about the complaint stage he was at. It advised that as per his request, it had not progressed his complaint. It noted, however, that although the resident had not clearly set out what he remained dissatisfied with and the outcome he sought, it was clear from his communication that he remained dissatisfied. It therefore confirmed that it would provide a stage two response under its complaints process, operating on the basis that its communication on 20 January 2021 (which this Service has not seen) was its stage one response. It confirmed it would consider the resident’s concerns about the building not meeting regulations, the insulation in the property, the condition of the kitchen and the location of damp in the loft space. It would also consider how the loft space had been partitioned. A response would be provided within 20 working days.
On 7 April 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response. It noted that following a further inspection on 15 February 2021, its contractors recommended:
1. Kitchen replacement works.
2. A review of the pipework in the bathroom to ensure that the WC could be used.
3. A review of the insulation and ventilation to ensure that it met regulations.
4. An investigation of the water ingress / damp in the roof area.
The electrical / gas installations were found to be satisfactory, however the landlord noted that as the survey at this time was difficult to complete, given the amount of space and the COVID restrictions, the resident would be required to temporarily move to alternative accommodation for approximately four months. This would enable it to carry out the further investigations and works that were required. The landlord advised that it would contact the resident shortly to discuss his requirements prior to the temporary move.
A gas safety inspection undertaken on 5 May 2021 also confirmed no faults and no remedial action required. An inspection to check the electrical fixed wiring within the resident’s property (on 22 June 2021) determined, however, that the overall condition of the installations was unsatisfactory. Recommendations were subsequently made for the issues deemed “potentially dangerous” to be acted on as a matter of urgency. A number of areas were noted for improvement also.
The Ombudsman is aware that the resident continued to make complaints after this time, maintaining that his occupancy was illegal due to the breaches in legislation and regulation.
This Service can see that the landlord sought to arrange for its contractor to undertake the recommended electrical works at the resident’s property on 31 August 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s property.

Under paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which were not complained about within six months of occurring. Consideration has subsequently only been given to the events which took place in the six months prior to the resident’s complaint in January 2021. In doing so, however, this Service has been unable to see that any repair issues were raised. It is unclear whether this is as the resident had not made any repair requests or whether the landlord has simply failed to retain / share the relevant records.
It therefore appears that the landlord was first made aware of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the condition of his home in January 2021. While the resident explained to the landlord that he was not seeking for the complaints department to respond to his email, it is clear that he was seeking a remedy. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord took the decision to arrange for an inspection of his property, even though this was not requested.
The Ombudsman has been unable to establish whether the landlord arranged for an inspection on both 3 and 15 February 2021 or whether the inspection arranged to take place on 3 February 2021 was rescheduled to 15 February 2021. In any case, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged for its specialist contractor to assess the resident’s property to enable it to understand the issues the resident was facing, and to form a plan on the next steps. This was in line with good practice.
It is unclear why the landlord did not provide the resident with an update on the recommendations made by its contractor earlier than 7 April 2021. Sharing this information with the resident at the earliest opportunity would have been useful in keeping him informed on how it intended to proceed and managing his expectations. The Ombudsman is content, nonetheless, that the landlord did so within its final response.
The landlord explained that works had been recommended for the resident’s kitchen, bathroom pipework to ensure that the WC was functioning appropriately, an investigation of the roof area / water ingress, and a review of the insulation / ventilation. While it is unclear what the resident raised in his correspondence on or around March 2021, these were all issues which the resident raised in his initial complaint. The landlord was therefore able to demonstrate to the resident that his matter was being taken seriously, and its intention to address all of the repairs highlighted.
Noting that there were several works to be undertaken, and that further investigation of his property was required which could not be done with the resident in situ, this Service can see that the landlord explained that the resident would need to be decanted temporarily. This also would have taken into account the resident’s reports of the impact the property was having on his / his partner’s health. This was not unreasonable although the Ombudsman accepts that in the absence of clarity on how this would work in practice, this may have caused some concern.
The Ombudsman has not had sight of the discussions had with the resident and / or any reservations the resident may have raised in response to this. The Ombudsman can see, however, that the landlord noted its intention to discuss the temporary move with the resident soon after its final response to enable it to discuss his requirements. This was reasonable.
It is also apparent to this Service that under section C.2. and E.5. of the resident’s tenancy agreement, it is explained that while the landlord will generally not interrupt the resident’s right to live in his home, it may be required to do so if it needs to “inspect or carry out any repairs to the property or to neighbouring properties”. This further supports its approach.
The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to see that there was any maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs, prior to its final response in April 2021.
Although the resident advised this Service in July 2021 that there were several other parts of his property which required repair – including a blocked handwash sink, cracks in the walls, and no running water – no evidence has been seen to suggest that it was brought to the landlord’s attention during the period of the complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to comment on how these issues were subsequently managed.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s assertion that his property was illegal and in breach of the Decent Homes Standard, the Building Act 1984, and unsafe in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).

In various correspondence, the resident advised this Service that he believed that his property was illegal, therefore voiding his tenancy / contractual agreement with the landlord. While he has therefore sought for this service to investigate the alleged breaches, it is beyond the expertise and jurisdiction of this Service to do so. This is as matters which relate to the law would be more appropriately investigated and determined by the courts.
The Ombudsman has, however, considered the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s assertions that the state of the property was in violation of regulation / legislation and unsafe in accordance with the HHSRS.
In the Ombudsman’s view, as this assertion formed a significant part of the resident’s substantive issue, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have specifically commented on this within its final response. Its correspondence in March 2021 advised that it had taken the residents comments relating to this on board and that it intended to respond to this within its stage two response.
It was not unreasonable though, that the landlord first sought to undertake further investigation. Given that the assertion of non-compliance / hazards mainly related to the insulation in the loft, the ventilation, damp and mould, and water ingress, it was reasonable that the landlord explained it would undertake an investigation to ensure that it was in line with regulation. This was appropriate.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord did miss an opportunity to clarify its position where the resident suggested that a serious hazard, allegedly highlighted by an Environmental Health Officer during an inspection in September 2020, had gone unaddressed. In the absence of the report, this Service has been unable to confirm the alleged finding and therefore cannot see that the landlord was made aware of any hazards prior to the resident’s complaint. In any case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have responded to this. Its failure to do so has not been seen as an admission, however.
Finally, this Service is aware that the resident also raised concerns with the landlord regarding the safety of the electrical and gas installations. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord arranged for inspections to take place in the months after it issued its final response. This Service can see that although no issues were found with the gas installations, it was found that the overall condition of the electrical installations was unsatisfactory. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord subsequently took steps to undertake the work recommended by the electrician.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The Ombudsman appreciates that as the resident had advised the landlord on 5 January 2021, after writing to the Chief Executive, that he was not seeking a response from the complaints department, the landlord explained that the complaint had been closed. This was fair.
It would have been reasonable, however, given that the resident made clear that he instead sought a response directly from the Chief Executive, for the landlord to have clarified its position on this expectation. This Service cannot see that the Chief Executive responded to the resident’s correspondence or that the landlord advised the resident that this would not be happening. The absence of any explanation would have been frustrating for the resident.
It was reasonable that in March 2021, on receiving further correspondence from the resident, the landlord agreed to consider his dissatisfaction under its complaints process. The Ombudsman also understands the reasoning behind its decision to do so at stage two, noting that its earlier correspondence could be deemed its stage one response. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have restarted its complaints process. This is as it does not appear, from the subsequent comments made by the landlord, that its stage one response understood the substantive elements of the resident’s complaint or commented on these. The landlord’s correspondence suggests that it only asked the resident for further clarification on what he remained dissatisfied with, if anything.
As per this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), resident’s should be given the opportunity to have their concerns responded to and to challenge a landlord’s findings / position, before exhausting its complaints procedure. It is clear, however, that in this case the resident did not have the opportunity to do so.
Moreover, the Code requires landlord’s to address / respond to all elements of a resident’s complaint. In this case, however, this Service has identified that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s suggestion that he had been subjected to institutional racism or to comment on how the loft space had been partitioned, despite confirming that it would.
The Ombudsman appreciates that with regards to the partitions, the landlord may have been waiting for feedback from its contractors after commencing its further investigations. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, if this was the case, this should have been explained to the resident. In the absence of any mention of these two issues in the final response, it appears that the landlord overlooked these issues, contrary to good practice.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s property.
2. No maladministration with regards to the landlord’s response to the resident’s assertion that his property was illegal and in breach of the Decent Homes Standard, the Building Act 1984, and unsafe in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
3. A service failure with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. Evidence suggests that upon receiving the resident’s dissatisfaction with the condition of his property, the landlord took steps to understand the extent of the issue and advised the resident on how it proposed to address this. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident may not have been keen to leave his property, but given the landlord’s explanation that it was unable to establish the full extent of the situation whilst the property was being occupied, it was not unreasonable to suggest a decant. This Service is satisfied with the landlord’s approach.
2. Although it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have commented on the resident’s assertions, particularly that there was a HHSRS hazard which had gone unaddressed, the landlord’s response was adequate. The landlord advised the resident that it would investigate the matters raised to ensure that these were in line with the relevant regulation. This was a reasonable response. This Service can also see that it made arrangements to address the issues discovered, following an inspection of the electrical installations.
3. The Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord adopted the appropriate approach, in regards to its handling of the resident’s complaint. It would have been more appropriate for it to have offered the resident a new stage one response before setting out its final position. What’s more, it does not appear that the landlord addressed all of the complaint issues which it was aware the resident sought answers to. It therefore did not act in line with good complaint handling practice.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £100.
The landlord should ensure that it makes the above payment, and shares evidence of this with this Service, within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recognises that there are several other issues which the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with since the landlord offered its final response in April 2021. As it is unclear whether the landlord has addressed these matters already, and due to the fragmented nature of the resident’s correspondence, the landlord should contact the resident to establish what issues he believes have not been addressed, and should respond to this under its complaints procedure.