Wandle Housing Association Limited (202119196)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119196

Wandle Housing Association Limited

29 July 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs needed to the resident’s window due to damp and mould.
2. Repairs to the lighting within the communal car park.
3. The resident’s concerns regarding a missing communal bin.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a first floor flat within a block of similar properties. The landlord has advised that there were no known vulnerabilities listed on its system, however, the resident has advised that she had a disability which prevents her from speaking on the phone.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in October 2020 as she was dissatisfied with its handling of a repair to the windows in her property which were affected by damp and mould and had gaps around the edge. She said that she had not been compensated for a missed appointment in July 2020 and had not heard anything further about the repair since August 2020. She added that repairs were needed to the external lighting in the car park and around the back of the property which she said she had reported on multiple occasions and had not worked for some time. She also raised concerns regarding the communal bin area; she said that the block had only had use of one communal bin for around 18 months. A new communal bin had been requested previously but had not been delivered and there was a build-up of rubbish as well as fly-tipping happening at the block.
The landlord initially responded and confirmed that a repair appointment for the resident’s windows would take place on 30 October 2020. It confirmed that the resident had been compensated for the missed appointment in July 2020. It said it would inspect the lighting in the communal areas and carry out repairs. It added that it had been in contact with the local authority and the bin provider regarding the issues experienced; it had established that the bin had been incorrectly delivered to another area of the scheme and had ordered another bin. It had also reported the missed collection to the local authority.
The resident escalated her complaint in November 2020 as she was dissatisfied that she had not been made aware of the appointment arranged on 30 October 2020 in advance as she had not received the landlord’s stage one complaint response before the appointment. She advised that she would be happy to rearrange the appointment via email. She reiterated that she had not received compensation for the previous missed appointment and added that the car park lights had temporarily worked but the repairs to the lights around the back of the property remained outstanding. She said that the bin issues had been ongoing for some time and suggested that the landlord raised a formal complaint with the local authority.
In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that it had not been able to gain access to the resident’s property for the repair to her windows on 29 October 2020 and had not received any further communication from the resident to arrange the appointment. It added that it had attempted to contact the resident but had not been able to get through. It raised a new appointment for 18 March 2021. It said that its records indicated that a £10 compensation payment had been made in relation to the missed appointment in July 2020. In relation to the car park lighting, it had attended and confirmed that no repairs remained outstanding but advised that a specialist contractor would attend to inspect and said the resident should report any future repairs though its contact centre. It explained that the bin company had experienced a backlog and that it had raised a complaint to resolve the issues faced. It confirmed that it had little control over the actions of either the bin provider or local authority. The resident continued to pursue her concerns regarding the communal bins with the landlord throughout 2021. The evidence suggests that a new communal bin was delivered around October 2021 following further communication.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied that she had not been made aware of the appointment on 30 October 2020 and had not been paid for the missed appointment on 17 July 2020. She added that she had asked the landlord to reschedule the appointment for her windows in November 2020 but that it had not responded. She also remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling, noting that she had needed to chase responses on multiple occasions and had not received the landlord’s stage two complaint response until December 2021. She advised that the repairs to the communal car park lighting remained outstanding and she did not feel that the landlord had investigated her concerns regarding the bins. The resident added that she had asked the landlord to communicate via email as she could not speak on the phone due to a disability but it had not done so.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s correspondence, she has advised that she initially raised concerns regarding the parking lighting in 2016, the issues regarding her windows were initially raised in 2015 and 2019 and the issue of the bins was first reported in 2018. Whilst the resident’s concerns regarding her windows were raised as part of a previous complaint the Ombudsman responded to in February 2020, there is no evidence to suggest that she had pursued these concerns specifically as a formal complaint until October 2020. Under Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, this assessment will not specifically focus on events prior to May 2020, which is six months prior to the formal complaint being made.

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the resident is responsible for reporting repair issues and allowing access to the landlord or its contractors so that inspections or repairs can be completed. The landlord’s repair policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the internal structure of a residents property including the windows. It is also responsible for repairs needed in communal areas which would include external lighting and bin storage areas.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. This would include repairs needed as a result of partial loss of lighting in communal areas and repairs to plastering and window furniture. If there are likely to be any delays, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide an expected completion date. If there is no access to a property on an appointed date, the repair would be cancelled and the resident would need to re-book the repair. The landlord’s policy also advises that it has a text notification system to remind residents of repair appointments to ensure availability.
The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy confirms that residents are responsible for ensuring that their waste is disposed of safely, tidily and as directed by the local authority. The landlord is responsible for removing waste considered as fly-tipping within five working days following a report. It confirms that refuse collection is the responsibility of the local authority and that it would work with the local authority to ensure that appropriate facilities are in place for the disposal, storage and collection of refuse.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaint process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of repairs needed to the resident’s window.

In this case, the landlord arranged an inspection of the windows in March 2020 following a recommendation made by the Ombudsman in February 2020 within a separate investigation. The resident has advised that there was a missed appointment in July 2020 and contractors had attempted to rearrange the appointment in August 2020 but she had not been given adequate notice and had asked for the work to be rearranged. Following this, there is no evidence to suggest that the appointment was rearranged until the resident made a complaint in October 2020, which was significantly outside the landlord’s timescales for routine repairs.
The landlord informed the resident of an appointment scheduled for 30 October 2020 in its stage one complaint response on 27 October 2020, however, the resident explained on 2 November 2020 that she had only received the response that day and that the appointment would need to be rescheduled as she had not been made aware of the appointment in advance. Whilst the landlord advised that the resident had also been emailed regarding the appointment, the Ombudsman asked that landlord to provide further information about how the resident was informed of appointments and it has not responded. The onus would be on the landlord to provide evidence that the resident was adequately informed of the appointment date. The landlord has not provided this. Furthermore, the landlord has referred to both 29 and 30 October 2020 as the appointment date and it remains unclear as to which date the no access appointment took place which indicates poor record keeping.
In its stage two complaint response, the landlord advised that following a no access appointment on 29 October 2020, it had not received any further contact from the resident to arrange the appointment. It had attempted to contact the resident but had not been able to reach her on the contact information on file. The evidence shows that the resident explained that she had not been made aware of the previous appointment in her escalation request on 2 November 2020 and had asked that the appointment was rescheduled via email. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to had rearranged the appointment at this time within a reasonable timescale. Its failure to do so resulted in a further delay in the appointment being arranged. In addition, the resident was made aware of the appointment for 18 March 2021 within the landlord’s stage two complaint response which she did not receive until December 2021. There is a lack of evidence to show that the resident was made aware of this appointment which is likely to be the reason that contractors could not gain access on this date. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it had attempted to rearrange the appointment following this date. Although there is similarly no evidence to suggest that the resident had pursued the repair any further throughout 2021.
The resident has advised that she has a disability which prevents her from speaking on the phone and had asked that all communication from the landlord be via email. Whilst the resident’s concerns are understandable, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities or her request that all communication be via email only. There is also no evidence to suggest that the resident had asked for general contact to be via email rather than phone within her complaint.
However it is noted that she had expressly asked for a member of staff to contact her via email only in December 2020. Whilst the landlord may not have been aware of the resident’s preferred method of contact, she had advised that she would be happy to rearrange the appointment via email on 2 November 2020. Given that it had said it had called on multiple occasions and had not been able to reach her, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have attempted to contact the resident via more than one contact method regarding the appointment but there is no evidence to suggest that it had done so.
In its communication with this Service, the landlord has advised that the repair to the resident’s window was still outstanding but that the work had been cancelled due to continuous no access to the property and that the resident had not engaged in the process since June 2021. Whilst landlords are not expected to repeatedly attempt to book appointments where there has been no access, it also has a responsibility to maintain the property. In this situation, as there were concerns regarding health and safety due to the presence of damp and mould linked to the window repair, the landlord would have been expected to consider taking enforcement action to gain access and engage with the tenant to understand why access had not been granted. The Ombudsman would also have expected to see evidence that the landlord had written to the resident advising her of her obligations to provide access and confirming that the appointment was cancelled until access was arranged. There is no evidence to confirm that it had done so.
In addition, the resident has advised that she had not been paid compensation for the missed appointment which occurred on 17 July 2020 related to her windows. The landlord advised that it had paid the resident £10. As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide documentary evidence which shows that the payment had been made. The landlord failed to respond to the Ombudsman’s request. The landlord has also failed to provide information about the method in which the payment was made which may have provided further clarity. As such, we are not able to conclude that the £10 was paid.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the lighting in the communal car park.

In line with the repairs policy, the landlord would be responsible for communal lighting and would be expected to carry out any required repairs within 28 calendar days. In this case, the resident advised that she reported the repair issue again in September 2020 but received no response. Although landlord’s record keeping is poor, there is a lack of evidence to show that the resident had pursued her concerns at this time.
Following receipt of the resident’s complaint, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for the lighting to be checked. It appears that some action was taken as the resident had reported that the car park lights were briefly working but that they had stopped working and the lighting behind the property remained outstanding.
Following the resident’s further concerns as detailed in her escalation request on 2 November 2020, the landlord advised that it had arranged for a specialist contractor to attend to determine whether further works were required. It is, however, noted that there was a delay in arranging this between 2 November 2020 and 2 March 2021, which was significantly outside of the landlord’s timescales for completing such works. In response to the Ombudsman’s request for information, the landlord explained in February 2022 that an inspection was completed on 2 March 2021 and a quote to reinstate the lights had been submitted. It found that this job had been cancelled by a former member of staff and there were no notes to indicate why this was the case.
It is of concern that the landlord failed to identify that the works had not been carried out until prompted for information by the Ombudsman in January 2022. This indicates poor record keeping in that the landlord failed to take ownership of the works through to completion. This has caused a significant delay in the repair issue being addressed and is likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident as she had spent time and trouble pursuing the repair issue and the landlord had failed to resolve the complaint effectively.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding a missing communal waste bin.

It should be noted that the landlord did not have sole control over the delivery of waste bins or the collection of waste as this was the role of the bin provider and the local authority. The landlord would, however, be responsible for ordering new bins where appropriate. In this case the landlord had ordered a new communal bin for the bin store at the resident’s block in June 2020. Following the resident’s reports that this had been delivered to a different block in September 2020, the evidence shows that it acted appropriately by contacting both the local authority and the bin provider to explain the error and order a new bin. The evidence shows that it continued to pursue updates from the bin provider throughout the course of the resident’s complaint and escalated its concerns where there had been a lack of action, which was reasonable.
The evidence also suggests that the landlord had arranged a collection of bulky items which had been left near the bin areas and said it would send a letter to all residents reminding of them of their responsibilities when it came to waste in May 2021, although it is unclear form the evidence provided as to whether this was sent. In addition, it is noted that the landlord had agreed to place ‘no fly-tipping’ signs in August 2021 in an attempt to reduce the waste issues at the block, although it is again unclear whether this was completed from the evidence provided. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to report missed collections to the local authority as it is ultimately responsible for waste collection. It was, however, reasonable for the landlord to pursue this directly with the local authority following multiple complaints from different residents within the block.
Whilst this issue was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, and the evidence confirms that the landlord sought regular updates from the bin provider and local authority, it would have also been expected to act proactively and provide regular updates to the resident in order to manage her expectations of the actions it was taking. The evidence shows that the resident needed to repeatedly contact the landlord for updates which is likely to have caused inconvenience. Furthermore the landlord has failed to provide evidence that the actions to manage the situation (the letter and signs) were completed.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The code states that the person considering the complaint at the review stage (stage two), must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage one (investigation stage). This is basic good practice, helps ensure impartiality, and brings in a wider perspective of the matters at hand.
The resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 12 October 2020. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 27 October 2020, which was within a reasonable timescale in line with its policies. The resident initially asked for her complaint to be escalated on 2 November 2020. She continued to pursue this in December 2020 and February 2021 as she had not received a response which is likely to have caused inconvenience. Whilst the landlord somewhat acknowledged the residents escalation request in December 2020, no progress was made and the resident was not informed of when she may receive a response. In addition, the landlord appears to have attempted to forward an email to the resident dated 4 December 2020, but failed to respond when the resident advised that she could not view the attachment which is likely to have caused additional confusion.
The landlord has advised that it sent its stage two complaint response on 1 March 2021. The resident has advised that she did not receive this and that she had sent several emails requesting a response throughout 2021. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any documentary evidence which confirms that the resident had pursued the lack of response with the landlord throughout 2021. The landlord was asked to provide communication logs and further information related to this but it did not respond. The onus would be on the landlord to provide evidence that the response was sent on 1 March 2021. The landlord has not responded to the Ombudsman’s request for further information and we therefore cannot conclude that this was sent.
Furthermore, the landlord’s stage two complaint response was issued by the same member of staff who handled the resident’s stage one complaint. As the review was conducted by the same person who had originally responded to the complaint, the landlord did not act in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, and acted contrary to basic complaint handling principles of fairness and impartiality. The landlord also failed to investigate the resident’s concerns about the length of time she had been reporting the issues experienced or confirm its position in relation to this which is likely to have been inconvenient to the resident who felt her concerns had not been addressed.
In addition, as part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide relevant documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. It was also asked to provide more specific information related to its communication with the resident regarding her complaint and the repair appointments, however, failed to respond to the Ombudsman’s requests. The omissions indicate poor record keeping and poor communication by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. If there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord, the onus would be on the landlord to provide evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard and that it had acted in accordance with policies and procedures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs needed to the resident’s window.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the communal lighting.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding a missing communal waste bin.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £800, comprised of:
  1. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience experienced by the resident in the handling of the window repair.
  2. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay to repairing the external communal lighting.
  3. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s communication regarding the communal bins at the resident’s property.
  4. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling and record keeping.
2. The landlord should agree an appointment date to complete the repair to the resident’s windows.
3. The should inspect the car park lights and the lighting around the back of the resident’s property to und
The landlord must provide written evidence that these orders have been completed within 4 weeks to the resident and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident via email regarding her vulnerabilities and updates its preferred contact method records accordingly on the provision of evidence.