Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202014773)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014773

Wandle Housing Association Limited

24 February 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communal window cleaning at the property.
    2. The level of service charge increase.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the level of service charge increase is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
  4. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek free and independent legal advice from Shelter (www.shelter.org.uk) in relation to how to proceed with a case.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a fixed term assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident initially raised a complaint with the landlord in August 2019 which related to the regularity of communal window cleaning throughout 2019 and his concern about an increase in his service charge associated with the cleaning costs following a change to a different cleaning company.
  3. This was handled informally by the landlord and the complaint was closed. The resident then raised a complaint about the complaint being closed without a formal response being issued. The landlord issued its final response to this complaint on 31 October 2019 in which it explained that the complaint had been incorrectly allocated. An informal email had been sent in response to the residents’ concerns and it had determined that the complaint had been resolved. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered the resident £60 compensation.
  4. In December 2020 the resident said that he did not recall receiving a stage two complaint response to his concerns about the cleaning contract and increased service charge. The landlord confirmed that it had responded to the previous complaint at stage one and stage two in 2019 but noted that neither response had addressed his concerns about the increase in service charge for which it apologised. It raised a new complaint in order to respond to his concerns.
  5. The landlord advised that it issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 10 December 2020. It confirmed the current costs charged to the landlord by the cleaning contractor and apologised that it had not provided this information sooner. The landlord escalated the complaint and further explained that the new cleaning contractor was appointed in 2019 and provided the lowest cost for the cleaning service following a re-tendering where cleaning companies could bid for the available work. It acknowledged that the amount charged to residents was higher than previous costs, however, it could not comment on why this was the case and noted that the costs would include additional costs incurred by the contracted company including those for administrative aspects of the business. It acknowledged that it should have addressed the resident’s concerns in 2019 and offered £100 compensation in view of the significant delay in addressing his query. Following this response, at the resident’s request, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response which had not been previously received by the resident. It noted that the letter was undated but confirmed that this had been sent on 10 December 2020.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not responded to specific issues he had raised in his August 2019 complaint, including the regularity of cleaning in 2019. He was dissatisfied that his former complaint had been closed and replaced with a new complaint. He added that the stage one complaint had not been received and he did not believe that this had been sent by the landlord. He added that the stage two response was issued significantly outside of the landlord’s 20 working day policy timescale.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Housing Ombudsman scheme states:

‘39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: e. were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising;’

  1. It is noted that the resident remains dissatisfied with how his complaint in August 2019 about the of window cleaning, and the complaint in October 2019 about the landlord’s process, were addressed by the landlord. However as it was over a year between these complaints and when they were re-raised by the resident in December 2020, they are outside the jurisdiction of this assessment.
  2. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint; however the resident would have had the opportunity to raise his concern about the quality and regularity of the window cleaning with the landlord in 2019 and 2020 whilst the issue was still ‘live’ if he felt his concerns had not been addressed in the complaint responses issued at the time. As such, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s response to the more recent complaint (made in December 2020) about landlord’s lack of response to his concerns about the service charge increase.
  3. As part of his communication with this Service, the resident also raised concerns about the landlord placing restrictions on his contact with the complaints department. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the landlord and then this Service, this is not something that this Service can assess in this case. The landlord needs to have opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect through its complaint process first. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a complaint to get this matter resolved.

Policies and procedures

  1. The Tenancy Agreement confirms that the resident pays a service charge as part of his rent for services supplied by the landlord, including window cleaning.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states that the landlord has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, a complaint response should be issued within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. A request to escalate a complaint to stage two of its complaint process must be made within a reasonable timescale, this would normally be within two months of its stage one response. At stage two, a response should be issued within 20 working days. The policy also states that it would not usually accept complaints where the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over six months prior, however, it would consider older reports of relevant issues as background to complaints if necessary.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding a service charge increase.

  1. The resident has raised concern that the landlord opened a new complaint in December 2020 rather than respond to his previous complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to open a new complaint at the time due to the length of time that had passed since the original complaint in August 2019, which was over six months earlier.
  2. Furthermore, the landlord had issued both a stage one and stage two complaint response to the resident in 2019. It is noted that the resident felt that some aspects of his initial complaint had not been addressed, however, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had raised missing issues between October 2019 and December 2020. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to consider the previous matter resolved.
  3. The landlord has demonstrated that it took adequate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and explain its position regarding the service charge in its subsequent complaint response on 1 February 2021. As above, if the resident has concerns about the actual level of service charge increase and whether this was reasonable, he could contact the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
  4. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake in 2019 by not responding to this issue, and apologised to the resident. It also offered the resident and £100 compensation. The compensation award is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range are suitable in instances of service failure which had some impact on the resident but may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. Ultimately the delayed response will have caused understandable frustration, but it was not actively chased and it did not affect the landlord’s substantive services to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of associated complaint.

  1. The resident has also expressed dissatisfaction that he did not receive the landlord’s stage one complaint response which the landlord said it issued on 10 December 2020. He noted that when he received the stage one complaint response it was undated and he was not convinced that it had been sent at the time.
  2. The records regarding the stage one complaint response are unclear and the landlord has not provided any supporting evidence to confirm that it issued its stage one response on 10 December 2020. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had advised the landlord that he had not received its stage one complaint response until 9 February 2021 which was after its stage two complaint response had been issued. As such, the landlord was not aware that the response had not been received. Following this, the landlord acted reasonably by providing the response in a timely manner once it was aware that it had not been received by the resident.
  3. It would have been helpful for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm that its stage one complaint response had been received prior to escalating the complaint to stage two. However, the resident was not significantly disadvantaged by this as the landlord had telephoned him on 1 February 2021 at which point he had the opportunity to discuss his concerns. The stage two complaint response indicates that the landlord had considered additional points raised by the resident at this time regarding information he had been provided by the window cleaner and confirmed its position. The resident was not significantly disadvantaged by not receiving the stage one complaint response as he was still able to escalate his complaint to stage two.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to the investigation in response to the resident’s concerns regarding a service charge increase which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £100 as previously agreed if it has not already done so.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that complaint responses are dated and there are adequate records.