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

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202126910)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126910

Wandle Housing Association Limited

24 June 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 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, and record keeping and compensation for the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to his bathroom radiator.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a two-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. On 13 August 2021, during an annual gas check, the landlord’s contractor’s engineer noted that the radiator in the resident’s bathroom was rusty, required replacement and, according to the resident but not the contractor, also identified a water leak from the radiator. Its records then showed that he reported to it on 1 October 2021 that he was continuing to wait for the radiator to be replaced due to this being leaking and rusty, despite the contractor having agreed to do so.
  3. On 9 November 2021, the resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord. He was unhappy that he had still not been contacted by the contractor with regard to replacing the radiator, that no further action had been taken in respect of this, and that the landlord had not responded to his previous report about the radiator. The resident therefore wanted a replacement radiator and an apology for the delay in providing this. According to the landlord’s internal email of 11 November 2021, a replacement radiator was ordered a few days after the annual gas check in August 2021, but was never booked to be installed due to an issue with the order that was not followed up.
  4. On 12 November 2021, the landlord’s contractor issued the stage one response on the landlord’s behalf. They apologised for the resident’s inconvenience and for not having followed up the replacement radiator, advising that this had not been replaced for two reasons. Firstly, the engineer that had attended had not provided measurements for the radiator and, secondly, under the contractor’s contract with the landlord, only radiators that had a fault could be replaced.
  5. According to the landlord’s contractor, they had no evidence to suggest that a radiator leak had been identified and/or recorded, and therefore they had not been aware of any such fault. However, they agreed to respond to the resident’s latest leak reports by assessing this, and measuring the radiator for a possible replacement, on 15 November 2021, apologising for their failure in communicating this to him that they agreed to address internally. Subsequently, on 15 November 2021, another gas safety check by the contractor identified a leak from the radiator, and their engineer advised that the leak was unstoppable due to the rust, for which the joints were capped and the resident awaited a replacement.
  6. On 24 November 2021, the resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. He believed that the contractor’s stage one complaint response was inaccurate because they seemed to have no records or reports in relation to the radiator leak, even though their engineer had originally taken photographs of the radiator, which, according to the resident, was partly to use for measurements. The resident stated that the contractor had again sent the same engineer to photograph the radiator for measurements and take this away during their latest visit, despite telling him that the engineer was not qualified to do so.
  7. The resident advised that he had previously brought a third party in to cap and detach the rusty leaking radiator in order to stop the effect on the boiler pressure and the rust getting on the floor. He also disputed the sincerity of the apology from the landlord’s contractor, requested compensation for their attitude and failings, and wished the work to replace the radiator to be carried out by another contractor.
  8. On 30 November 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged that the contractor had been aware of the rusty radiator, but that they had taken no further action or contacted him about this. The landlord stated that, although the contractor had been correct that finding rust on a radiator would not necessarily lead to a replacement, their engineer had deemed it necessary to do so. The landlord agreed that, had the contractor contacted the resident in August 2021, the leak would have been identified and resolved. The landlord also stated that the contractor had been incorrect when they had advised him that, due to their contract with the landlord, they would be unable to replace the radiator.
  9. The landlord described this as poor customer service, and apologised for the incorrect guidance and any inconvenience or distress caused. It advised the resident that it would learn from this experience, and that it had advised its staff to review the content of their responses, as well as the responses of the contractor. The landlord also advised him that it had notified the contractor to make sure that they contacted residents once a complaint was logged, and checked their records before responding.
  10. In recognition of its failures, the landlord offered £150 compensation to the resident for poor communication and incorrect information from the contractor, as well as for the failure to replace the radiator. It advised that it had asked the contractor to attend his property on 16 December 2021 to repair this, for which it agreed to then call him on the same day to check that the work was completed to a satisfactory level.
  11. On 9 March 2022, the resident contacted this Service to advise that the radiator had been replaced in December 2021, but that the landlord had still not paid him the compensation that it had offered. He reported that he had chased the payment with it several times but, according to him, each time it would respond saying that there had been an error with payment request. The resident now wanted the compensation increased to reflect the landlord’s delays, the frustration that he felt, and for the unprofessional treatment that he felt that he had received from it.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, a partial heating failure is an appointed repair due within 28 calendar days, unless the resident or the type of work require more time.
  2. The landlord’s contractor’s engineer advised them on 13 August 2021 that the resident’s bathroom radiator needed to be replaced due to rust. The replacement radiator was ordered but not installed at that time, and was subsequently fitted on or around 16 December 2021, which was at least 125 calendar days later. Even if no fault had been identified with the radiator, the fact that a replacement was ordered by the engineer should have been queried and further investigated by the contractor at that time, as later acknowledged by the landlord.
  3. Subsequently, the landlord’s contractor found the water leak from the radiator, which the resident had reported on 1 October 2021, when they inspected this on 15 November 2021, but again the radiator was not replaced until on or around 16 December 2021, which was at least 76 calendar days later. Since the landlord acknowledged that the radiator issue should have been further investigated by the contractor in August 2021, the repairs for the rust therefore took at least 125 calendar days and for the leak took at least 76 calendar days.
  4. These timescales exceeded the 28 calendar days stated by the landlord’s responsive repairs policy for partial heating failures by 97 and 48 calendar days, respectively. As a consequence, it acknowledged these failings, and its and its contractor’s poor communication with and incorrect information to the resident about the radiator repair, for which £150 compensation was awarded in recognition of this. This is because the repairs were not carried out within 28 calendar days, nor was he advised of the outcome of the initial inspection on 13 August 2021, or what to expect in terms of resolution, but instead received contradictory information about this from the contractor..
  5. The contractor did apologise to the resident for the inconvenience caused by this, and for not following up the radiator issue, and they explained why the radiator had not been replaced. They also arranged for another gas safety check at his property to assess and measure the radiator for possible replacement, as well as agreeing to address their communication failure in respect of this internally.
  6. The landlord then clarified the situation regarding the radiator replacement, and it accepted that had the issue been investigated sooner, it would have been resolved sooner. It additionally apologised to the resident for the incorrect advice given to him about this, and for any inconvenience or distress caused, and it agreed to advise its staff and contractor to review their responses, contact residents once a complaint was logged, and check their records before responding. The landlord, therefore, did attempt to remedy the situation, although the £150 compensation that it awarded may not yet have been paid to the resident, according to his reports about this.  
  7. Under this Service’s remedies guidance, for failures including incorrect information being provided to the resident, him having to repeatedly chase the landlord, and its failure over a considerable period of time to address repairs, compensation from £250 is recommended. Accordingly, this and the fact that its offer of £150 compensation to him on 30 November 2021 may not have been paid to him by at least 9 March 2022 or at all, was not reasonable under our remedies guidance. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident £250 total compensation, including the £150 already offered to him if it has not done so already, as well as recommended below to review its processes for paying compensation to ensure that this is paid in a timely manner without having to be chased.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of, and record keeping and compensation for the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to his bathroom radiator.

Order and recommendation

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 total compensation, including the £150 compensation already offered to him if not paid already, within four weeks for the incorrect information, delay in resolution, him having to repeatedly chase it, and poor communication that he experienced.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its processes for paying compensation to ensure that this is paid in a timely manner without having to be chased.
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order, and whether it will follow the above recommendation.