Wandle Housing Association Limited (202115070)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115070

Wandle Housing Association Limited

12 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of discrimination.
2. Communication about an issue with the energy meter.
3. Handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a flat with the landlord since 6 October 2017. The lease agreement is with the landlord. The landlord does not own the freehold of the building.
Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for repairing, redecorating and renewing the structure of the building, including service media, cisterns and tanks and other gas, electrical, drainage, ventilation and water apparatus and machinery. Exceptions are where these exclusively serve an individual flat in the building, and anything belonging to any utility supply authority or company.
The resident is responsible for the repairing covenants and obligations detailed in the headlease. The property was newly built when the resident moved in, and therefore it was subject to a defect period for which the developer was responsible for repairs.
The landlord’s complaint policy states:
1. A complaint is defined as any expression of dissatisfaction, however made, affecting a resident relating to the standard of the services provided by the landlord or those acting on its behalf; or the actions, or lack of action by the landlord or those acting on its behalf.
2. Stage one complaints will usually be investigated and responded to by a member of the team involved in the initial service failure. A response to a stage one complaint can be expected within 10 working days.
3. If a resident remains dissatisfied following the response at stage one or feels that the landlord has not delivered on its resolution plan, a request can be made to escalate their complaint to stage two of the process. Only concerns that were part of the stage one complaint will be considered at this stage. Stage two complaints will usually be investigated and responded to by a senior member of the team involved in the stage one complaint. It will respond within 20 working days if possible.
4. The landlord will communicate with the resident throughout the investigation and keep them informed of any relevant information.
5. It will not consider an issue that has occurred six months prior to the complaint, however it will consider older reports of relevant issues as background to complaints if necessary and will consider older concerns when responding to safeguarding or health and safety concerns.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 11 May 2021. He said that buying a shared ownership property with the landlord had been a major mistake, and he wanted to sell his property. The resident advised that:
1. There were defects in the property that he reported to the landlord within weeks, who said the claim would go to the developers. He said he lodged a claim with the National House Building Council (NHBC) who forced the developer to complete the work. He advised his neighbour had the same issue and hers was resolved within weeks by the landlord, leading him to believe the different treatment he received was due to his nationality as he was not British.
2. He was told when he moved in there would be no big increase in the service charge, but after six months the service charge doubled and he was asked for more money and did not get a reply to his queries about it.
3. He had been experiencing problems with the energy meter for three years and was told to be patient about it.
4. He had been accused of being verbally abusive on the phone and disrespectful in emails.
5. He reminded the landlord of the core principles on its website:
  1. “Aim high – We are ambitious for ourselves and each other and celebrate and share in success.
  2. Own it – We take individual and collective responsibility for our actions and are honest when things don’t go right.
  3. Think customer – We believe the experience of our customers is everything, and that will always be at the forefront of our minds.
  4. Work together – We share insight, knowledge and experience to improve the way we work.
  5. Build relationships – We recognise that every person is unique and reflect this in the relationships we build.”
6. The resident said in his case these principles were not true. He said there had been no communication and no relationship. He said he did not want an apology as he had received these before and nothing had changed, so an apology would have no value.
The landlord thanked the resident for the email and advised that it outlined a number of issues for it to investigate. It advised it would log the complaint and asked the resident whether there was anything he would like it to consider doing in response.
The resident provided further information to the landlord on 19 May 2021 about his complaint. He advised that he could not say a good thing about the landlord. He had four years of emails and got either no replies or similar replies from the landlord, but the replies did not provide any answers. The resident said he was told nothing could be done about the defective flooring, and that he would need to open a claim with the National House Building Council (NHBC). He also said the landlord had not helped him with the meter issue, and no one else was doing anything. He said that since February 2021, there had been engineers attend to fix the meter, but the issue had not been resolved.
The landlord responded to the stage one complaint on 26 May 2021. The landlord thanked the resident for the conversation they had on the telephone the previous day, particularly as the resident had previously requested all correspondence was by email. The landlord confirmed issues more than six months old were excluded from the complaint process. It did however advise the resident it did not tolerate discrimination. It said it was willing to investigate this and asked the resident to provide more information about his claim that the refusal to complete the work to his floor during the defect period was due to his nationality. The landlord also advised the resident that issues with the energy meter were brought to the attention of the complaint responder on 16 February 2021 and since then it had been trying to get the matter resolved with the energy company. The letter advised the resident to make a compensation claim with the energy company.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 May 2021 and said that phone conversations seemed to lead to misunderstandings and he did not want the landlord to contact him on the phone again. The resident advised the energy meter had not worked properly since 2018, which the landlord was aware of, and he was not satisfied that it was taking such a long time to sort out. The resident had said he was not interested in the compensation that the landlord advised him to apply for from the energy company. He felt this would not compensate for his distress, or time and trouble writing emails.
The resident said he had seen his neighbour’s flooring at the time, and that his floor was in the same condition, although he had a 3mm gap in part of a floorboard, so considered it worse. The resident advised that there was no other explanation for why the developer did not initially repair the flooring in his flat, when his neighbour got hers repaired, so felt he was being treated differently due to his nationality.
Within this same email, the resident also raised concerns about an email with the leasehold team sent on 19 August 2020, for which he received an acknowledgement, but said there was no other response. The resident said that he did not think it was fair that this would not be looked at as part of the complaint, as it was over six months old.
The landlord contacted the resident on 3 June 2021. It said it had hoped that the previous conversation on the phone had led to the beginnings of a good relationship but noted that the resident had requested that the landlord did not contact him by telephone again. It provided confirmation that it had spoken to the freeholder and the energy company and a date for work to the meter had been agreed. It said it would contact the resident again as soon as it had further information.
The resident contacted the landlord on the same day after receiving this email, as he was not satisfied that he had not been provided with any answers. The resident said that he had advised the landlord of the different treatment he had received during the defect period, but the landlord did not seem to think this was important.
The landlord contacted the resident by email on 21 June 2021 and apologised for the delay in responding to his email sent on 3 June 2021. It advised the resident that it had asked him to provide additional information so it could investigate his report of unfair treatment. It advised work to resolve the meter issue was expected in approximately two weeks, and that it would be in contact again as soon as it had confirmation of the date.
The next day, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had escalated the complaint to the second stage of the complaint process, and to expect a response within 20 working days.
The landlord sent its final complaint response to the resident on 29 June 2021. It said:
1. The aim of the second stage of the process was to review the handling of the resident’s complaint and ensure it took reasonable and proportionate action to address the issues raised. It summarised the issues raised and outcomes sought by the resident in his contact with the landlord following the stage one complaint response.
2. It had continued to chase the freeholder for an update on works required to the energy meter. It advised the resident it had provided him with updates on 3 June 2021 and 21 June 2021, and that the energy company should complete the required work on 7 July 2021.
3. It was not responsible for the meter under the terms of the lease, but as it was the resident’s landlord it endeavoured to get updates from the developer and energy company. It advised it had contacted the energy company to express dissatisfaction over the time it was taking to resolve the matter and requested that compensation was offered to the resident. It advised the resident he could still submit a claim for compensation.
The resident contacted this Service on 3 and 8 October 2021 and said the following:
1. When he was sold the flat, the landlord told him that it would be reasonable when increasing the service charges, but they asked for double after six months, and double again the year after that.
2. The reason he had been dealing with the landlord was because he was told not to speak to the developer due to the tone of his emails and being verbally abusive on the phone, which was disputed. The resident said this went back to a problem with his energy meter from 2017, which only got resolved the previous day.
3. He advised that the complaint responses were from the same people he had been dealing with since the beginning and he felt this would mean the officers were not impartial.
4. He provided the information requested for the investigation but never received any explanation after that. He said his defects to his floor were worse than his neighbour. He advised that the developer deemed his defects acceptable but NHBC did not agree and believed this was due to discrimination.
5. The landlord had not got back to him about an issue with the car park he raised in 2018 and a call asking for money in 2021. The resident said that the landlord had a habit of avoiding answers to questions, and then after six months it said nothing can be done.
6. That he had seen part of the correspondence the landlord had with the energy company and did not think the landlord had placed enough pressure on the energy company.
7. That the landlord had been asking the energy company to visit the flat since February 2021 for special tests, but the company had attended without the device needed on one occasion, and with a broken device on another.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of discrimination

In its stage one complaint response, the landlord advised it would investigate the resident’s report of discrimination in 2018. This was outside the scope of its complaint policy as it would normally only consider something that had happened within the previous six months. It was appropriate for the landlord to use its discretion to agree to investigate this matter further.
The landlord asked the resident to provide evidence to support his claim of discrimination so it could investigate this aspect of the complaint. The resident responded to the email, saying his floor was in a worse condition than his neighbour’s floor. The resident said his neighbour’s floor was repaired yet the developer initially refused to repair his floor. The resident said he believed the reason was due to discrimination on the basis of his nationality.
The resident did not give any further details that could have assisted in the investigation. The landlord advised the resident that he had not provided supporting information during its correspondence with the resident several days before the final complaint response.
The final stage response did not refer to the discrimination part of the complaint. For clarity, it would have been helpful for the landlord to mention that it could not investigate this part of the complaint any further and explain the reasons why. This would have helped to manage the expectations of the resident, even if it was a repeat of the information it had given the resident in its communications several days earlier. However, this omission in itself is not significant enough to determine that there was a service failure by the landlord when considering the complaint, particularly given the landlord had already informed the resident that it did not believe it had sufficient information to progress an investigation.
In his correspondence, the resident advised that the developer had visited his property during the defect period with a representative of the landlord and the NHBC. The developer completed the repairs following the resident’s claim with the NHBC. It is not clear from the information provided the date when the floor got repaired, although it was carried out before the resident made his complaint.
Further, the resident’s concerns about the flooring repair and the decision-making on this appear to primarily relate to the steps directly taken by the developer and NHBC rather than the landlord. It was therefore unlikely that there would have been any benefit from the landlord carrying out enquiries of its own, or any follow up actions it could have taken in response to the resident’s claims without detailed information from the resident as requested.

The landlord’s communication about an issue with the energy meter

This Service recognises that the ongoing issue with the energy meter will have been inconvenient for the resident and may have caused him distress. The landlord is not responsible for the meter and it is an issue with either the developer and/or the energy company. Therefore, this Service is only able to determine whether the actions of the landlord in its communications with the resident and energy company/developer were reasonable.
The resident has said in correspondence that he has had issues with the energy meter for four years. It is not known whether these were constant or intermittent issues. This Service can therefore only look at the communication the landlord had with the resident about the meter from February 2021 as this was the date considered during the formal complaint process.
The landlord recognised that there had been issues with the energy meter and delays getting the resident’s issues with it resolved. To assist the resident, the landlord apparently pursued the repairs with the energy company and developer as promised in its stage one complaint response.
The landlord has demonstrated in its correspondence that it provided updates to the resident. The landlord signposted the resident to the energy company to make a claim for compensation, and advised that it told the energy company that it was dissatisfied that this was taking such a long time to resolve the issue. This was outside the remit of its obligations as a landlord and demonstrates the landlord’s commitment to its core principles and its attempts to help the resident get the matter resolved. Therefore, this was a reasonable approach.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The complaint was raised to the landlord on 11 May 2021. The resident followed this up with another email on 19 May 2021 after the landlord contacted him about the complaint. The landlord responded to the complaint on 26 May 2021, taking 11 days to respond from the initial email.
Following the initial complaint response, the landlord spoke to the resident by email and phone on 3 June 2021. The landlord recognised that the resident was not satisfied with the response and escalated his complaint on 22 June 2021 so it could be reviewed. The landlord sent its final stage response on 29 June 2021. Although the first stage response was one day outside of the timescales in its policy, the delay was not unreasonable, particularly as the landlord asked the resident to provide further information after the initial complaint which it said was needed to investigate further.
The landlord explained that it was not able to look at something as part of a complaint if it happened more than six months previously. Although the resident was not satisfied with this, the landlord followed its complaint policy, and therefore this was an appropriate response.
The resident has expressed concerns to this Service that the officers responding to his complaints were involved in the issues originally. The resident was not complaining about the conduct of the particular officers in his complaint to the landlord but was not satisfied that officers were impartial.
It was reasonable that the officer concerned responded to the complaint due to their involvement in the issues, and area of expertise. It was also in accordance with the complaint policy that says that stage one complaints will usually be investigated and responded to by a member of the team involved in the initial service failure. The review was conducted by another officer. This Service has not seen any evidence that supports the resident’s view that the complaint process has not been conducted fairly.
The landlord demonstrated throughout its communication with the resident during the complaint process that it attempted to understand and respond to his concerns, and to maintain a good relationship.
The landlord provided the resident with reasonable updates about the energy meter as promised in its complaint response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. There has been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of discrimination.
2. There has been no maladministration by the landlord in its communication about an issue with the energy meter.
3. There has been no maladministration by the landlord in the handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in his complaint letters, taking into account the information provided by the resident and the historic nature of the issues raised.
The landlord has communicated with the resident to report back on its liaison attempts with the energy company about the meter, updating him as promised. The landlord said it had expressed dissatisfaction to the energy company about the length of time it was taking to get the matter resolved and advised the resident to make a compensation claim with the energy company. These efforts were reasonable given it was not obliged to maintain the meter itself.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within appropriate timescales and liaised with him reasonably during the complaint process.