Wandle Housing Association Limited (202115617)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115617

Wandle Housing Association Limited

13 April 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 handling of:

1. The resident’s reports of mould, damp and leaking toilet in the property.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant who moved into the property in July 2014. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the sixth floor of a block of flats.
3. On 13 July 2021 the resident reported that mould had been present for several months on the skirting board in the bathroom, and that this had extended to the exterior wall of a wardrobe in the bedroom.
4. The landlord attended the property on 6 August 2021 and a dehumidifier was provided to address the damp. The landlord has recorded attending the property to further assess the damp on 13 August and15 and 22 September 2021. On each occasion the dehumidifier was retained to extract the excess moisture from the property. In addition to the reports of damp and mould, the resident also reported to the landlord:
   1. on 10, 11 and 12 August that the toilet was leaking. The records show that this repair was resolved on 12 August 2021.
   2. on 17 August that the toilet was overflowing and that the water supplier had advised that the cistern was causing the water to overflow. A similar report was made by the resident on 19 August as the landlord had not attended the property to rectify the fault reported on 17 August. The records show that this repair was resolved on 23 August 2021.
5. On 27 September 2021 the resident complained to the landlord that the works to repair the damage caused by the damp, mould and leaking toilet had not been fully completed. He also sought reimbursement of the additional costs incurred while using the dehumidifier. There is no record of the landlord’s response to the stage one complaint, but the resident documented being offered compensation by the landlord in a telephone call on 8 October 2021.
6. The landlord was aware of the resident’s intention to make a stage two complaint on 12 October 2021. The resident escalated the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process because the compensation offered at stage one was insufficient and the outcome had failed to address the issues raised. The landlord’s response to the stage two complaint was issued on 9 November 2021 and apologised for being unable to resolve the concerns at stage one of the complaints process. As part of its response the landlord attended the property to investigate the issues raised by the resident. During that visit the resident reported that:
   1. the flush to the toilet was faulty and difficult to operate.
   2. the mould had spread underneath the floor covering in the bathroom.
   3. the operative attending the property did not conduct themselves appropriately.
7. In its stage two response the landlord agreed to send a different operative to the property on 13 November 2021 to repair the faulty toilet flush and to mould wash and stain block the affected areas. The landlord also made a commitment to replacing the sub floor underneath the covering in the bathroom as soon as possible, and noted that the timing of the replacement would be subject to the outcome of an inspection.
8. The resident says he would like compensation for the financial distress caused by using the dehumidifier for an extended period of time, as well as an acknowledgement from the landlord for the lack of professionalism displayed in resolving the repairs reported.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The resident first reported to the landlord on 18 January 2021 that the toilet flusher in the bathroom was broken, and the landlord completed a repair the following day. Although the resident’s subsequent reports of leaks, damp and mould were initially located in the bathroom, there is no evidence to suggest that the fault the resident later reported about the toilet flush in August 2021 was in any way connected to the toilet flusher that was repaired by the landlord in January 2021. This investigation therefore focuses on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports of mould, damp and leaking toilet in the property from July 2021, until its final response in November 2021.

The resident’s reports of mould, damp and leaking toilet in the property

10. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is obligated to maintain the structure and outside of the property, and the maintenance and repairs policy clearly states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to any plumbing and bathroom fixtures, including relevant pipework.
11. In July 2021 the resident reported that mould had been present for several months on the skirting board in the bathroom. The landlord does not have a published policy outlining its approach to treating mould and damp, however the Ombudsman’s view is that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. The resident has not raised specific concerns about the time taken to treat the damp and mould and the information available to the Ombudsman shows this issue was fully rectified in February 2022 when the bathroom flooring was replaced.
12. The records show that the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions during August 2021 with reports of a leaking toilet, and the landlord initially attended within swift timeframes. On 17 and 19 August 2021, the resident then made further reports that the toilet was overflowing with water, which included that the water supplier had recommended for a plumber to replace the cistern which it assessed was causing the water to overflow. The landlord’s records show that this issue was resolved on 23 August 2021.
13. The landlord’s maintenance and repairs policy does not specify if a leaking toilet is classified as an emergency, but the time taken to resolve some of these reports and the fact that an agreed appointment was not made with the resident for any of these repairs suggests that the landlord treated the reports as an emergency. It was appropriate for the landlord to do so as there is only one toilet in the property and this is in line with the Right to Repair regulations, which do not specifically apply to the landlord but inform the approach of many housing associations. These confirm such issues should be resolved within one day.
14. The landlord’s aim should be to get repairs right the first time and this did not happen in this case, as demonstrated by the number of reports made by the resident for what seemingly appeared to be the same or very similar issues with the toilet during August 2021. It is of concern that the landlord’s internal processes did not identify the need to consider reviewing the repairs completed or that further enquiries were not made with the resident in this regard before a complaint was made. It is also of concern that further reports were not resolved, from either 17 or 19 August 2021, until 23 August 2021. This was a period of five days, exceeding reasonable timeframes expected, despite this being the only toilet in the property.
15. The above shows that the landlord did not do all it could to resolve matters in a timely manner, which would have caused inconvenience to the resident and leads the Ombudsman to find a service failing.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

16. The landlord was not able to provide records relating to the outcome of the stage one complaint made by the resident. In the absence of these records the Ombudsman has determined it is reasonable to rely on the resident’s submission about the outcome. As such, the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord made an offer of compensation to the value of £250 and that this offer was made without seeking additional information from the resident about the actual costs incurred. The basis on which the offer of £250 was made is therefore unclear and appears to contravene the landlord’s complaints policy which states that the ‘specific financial loss / and or loss of amenity in respect of a claim of disrepair’ is one of the matters that will be considered when thinking about a remedy or compensation.
17. The tenancy agreement does not specify the resident or landlord’s roles and responsibilities in relation to treating damp and mould in the property, but under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for repairs in respect to the structure of the property. The resident would not be expected to incur the costs associated with the landlord discharging its obligations. As a result, it was not unreasonable for the resident to seek reimbursement for some of the additional costs incurred while using the dehumidifier to extract excess water from the property.
18. It is clear from the information available that the landlord did not properly consider the resident’s concerns because enquiries were not made about the additional costs incurred. Although the landlord made an offer of compensation, the basis on which the offer was made was not clear or explained to the resident. This is not satisfactory, and the landlord should have considered this issue further at stage two of its complaints process. However, the failure to record and document the outcome of its stage one response to the complaint meant this issue was not identified as remaining unresolved.
19. It appears the landlord verbally communicated the outcome of the stage one complaint without fully considering the issues raised by the resident. This is demonstrated by the fact it did not confirm the outcome of this stage to the resident in writing and was not able to provide these records to the Ombudsman.Although the landlord communicated the outcome of the stage one complaint in a timely manner, its handling of the complaint at this stage was lacking in several areas. This is acknowledged in its stage two response which noted the failure to conduct an inspection of the property and then arrange for the necessary remedial works to be completed.
20. If the landlord had properly considered the resident’s complaint at stage one, it is likely that the remedial works needed to repair the damage caused by the mould, damp and leaking toilet would have started slightly earlier than 13 November 2021. The offer of compensation would also not have contravened its relevant policy and may have been acceptable to the resident. This is because the amount offered would have likely reflected the actual additional costs. In addition, the failure to document the response to the stage one complaint contributed to the failure to accurately identify the issues that remained unresolved and should therefore have been considered at stage two. As a result, the landlord’s response to the stage two complaint did not consider all of the issues raised by the resident and which remained unresolved. Even though the landlord acknowledged some errors in its handling of the initial complaint, it failed to appropriately acknowledge and apologise for all its shortcomings in its response to the resident, and so in the Ombudsman’s opinion did not go far enough.
21. The above shows that the landlord did not adhere to its complaints policy when investigating the complaint; the level of compensation offered to the resident did not consider the actual costs incurred; and the landlord’s approach did not reflect our Complaint Handling Code and our Dispute Resolution Principles. Consequently, the Ombudsman finds there was a service failing in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of mould, damp and leaking toilet in the property.
    2. the resident’s complaint.

Orders

23. The landlord should, within four weeks:
    1. Pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified above.
    2. Liaise with the resident to consider reimbursing him for the actual costs incurred when using the dehumidifier. As part of this, the landlord should liaise with the resident to obtain historic utility bills in order to calculate the additional usage and expenditure.
    3. Review its complaint handling and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, to ensure it issues written complaint responses at each stage of its formal complaint procedure.

Recommendations

24. The landlord to review its repairs handling to ensure it identifies and escalates reoccurring repairs issues appropriately.