Wandle Housing Association Limited (202205585)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205585

Wandle Housing Association Limited

6 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 the resident’s request that it:
   1. Redecorate his bathroom following water leaks.
   2. Compensate him for costs he incurred as a result of these leaks.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a two bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord also owns and maintains the flat above.
3. The resident has a disability but the landlord’s records have not specifically recorded what this is.

Scope of investigation

4. During contact with this Service, the resident has made mention of a replacement shower door which was delivered to the property and left in the hallway for a long period awaiting installation by the landlord. This matter was not raised in either of the resident’s formal complaints to the landlord, or his request to escalate his complaint to stage two of its process. It was therefore not considered by the landlord as part of its complaints process and will not be addressed in this report.

Relevant policies and procedures

5. The landlord has a repairs and maintenance policy which states that:
   1. The landlord is responsible for ‘making good’ following a repair, in preparation for residents’ decorations.
   2. Residents are responsible for internal decoration of the property and damage to their possessions from water.
   3. The landlord will only consider claims for damage to residents’ possessions where there is clear legal liability or it could have reasonably foreseen a need for repair and failed to take action.
   4. In other circumstances it is the responsibility of the resident to make a claim under their home contents insurance.
6. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it may offer residents discretionary compensation payments to rebuild trust and goodwill. It states it will consider residents’ vulnerabilities and use its discretion when assessing the need for action or compensation. It says compensation will not usually be provided where the issue should be covered by a resident’s contents insurance.

Summary of events

7. On 17 January 2022, the landlord attended the property after the resident reported a leak from the flat above into his bathroom. The resident reported further leaks in the same location on 30 January 2022, 15 February 2022 and 22 February 2022 with the landlord attending each time. The landlord resolved the issue on 24 February 2022 after completing works which included taking down and then reinstating the resident’s ceiling. The landlord supplied the resident with a dehumidifier to dry out the bathroom.
8. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 7 February 2022. He expressed dissatisfaction with the recurring leaks. He said that the leaks had damaged the walls and ceiling of his bathroom and requested that the landlord arrange to redecorate these. He also requested compensation for the costs of running a heater he had been using to dry out the bathroom, replacing towels he had used to contain the leaks and money he had paid to have the bathroom cleaned.
9. On 9 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It apologised for the inconvenience the resident had experienced. It advised it had arranged for the leaks to be rectified and for damage to the resident’s bathroom ceiling to be repaired. The landlord also offered the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience of replacing his towels.
10. On 23 February 2022, the resident made a second complaint to the landlord. He stated that he had been running the dehumidifier it had provided for over a week, that the noise was affecting his sleep and the electricity used was costing him money. The resident said he had now paid on three occasions for the bathroom to be cleaned due to the leaks and had replaced four towels and a sheet that had been damaged. He asked for the landlord to compensate him for the “stress and pain” he had been through and for the towels and sheet. He also requested that the landlord complete all repairs to the bathroom and redecorate it.
11. On 25 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint of 23 February 2022. It stated that his complaint had already been addressed in its complaint response of 9 February 2022 but that if he remained dissatisfied he could escalate his complaint to the final stage of its process within the next two months.
12. On 24 March 2022, the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. He said that the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was not enough. He stated it had failed to consider the costs of him running the dehumidifier, having the bathroom cleaned, replacing damaged items and purchasing a carpet cleaner after water got into his carpets. The resident calculated his total costs at £629.41 and requested the landlord pay him that amount.
13. On 27 April 2022, the resident chased the landlord for its stage two response. He stated that in the time since his escalation request, the dehumidifier had continued to run constantly and he had calculated he had used £128.52 of additional electricity. The landlord responded the same day apologising for the delay in issuing its response. It advised that, as it had duplicated his complaint at stage one, the stage two response would serve as the final response to both complaints.
14. On 29 April 2022, the landlord sent its stage two response. It acknowledged that its stage one response had not appropriately dealt with all issues raised by the resident and apologised for this. The landlord said that it had not resolved the leak within its standard timescales and this had led to the resident having to use the dehumidifier for longer and to arrange for the bathroom to be cleaned on three occasions. It stated that the dehumidifier had been collected that day and that it had arranged for the bathroom ceiling to be stain blocked and painted on 17 May 2022. It offered the resident compensation of £600 for its service failures. This was made up of:
    1. £250 for the costs and inconvenience of running the dehumidifier;
    2. £100 for the inconvenience of replacing the towels;
    3. £150, composed of a payment of £50 for inconvenience on each occasion of the leaks;
    4. £100 contribution towards redecorating the bathroom walls as a gesture of good will.

It signposted the resident to this Service should he require further assistance or guidance.

15. On 6 May 2022, the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation.
16. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 May 2022. He stated that it had not arranged for the bathroom walls to be decorated and he believed it should be responsible for this due to the damage having been caused by it. The resident said he had raised this issue with the landlord’s operative who had attended that day to stain block and paint the ceiling and this had led to them leaving without carrying out any work.
17. On 7 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again. He said that the stain blocking and painting of the bathroom ceiling had still not been completed. He told the landlord that this was causing issues with condensation and water stains when the bathroom was used. The resident said that the landlord had also still not arranged for the bathroom walls to be decorated.
18. The resident first contacted this Service on 20 June 2022. He expressed dissatisfaction that the ceiling had still not been stain blocked or painted. He also stated he felt the landlord should increase its offer of compensation owing to the length of time it had taken to arrange this.
19. On 12 October 2022, whilst his complaint was awaiting investigation by this Service, the resident advised that he had arranged redecoration of the bathroom at his own expense.

Assessment and findings

Redecoration of bathroom

20. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy is clear that internal decoration is the responsibility of the resident and that following a repair it will only ‘make good’ in preparation for decoration.
21. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £100 as a gesture of goodwill towards the costs of redecorating the bathroom walls. This was reasonable considering it accepted that the leaks were not fixed within its standard timescales which is likely to have increased the level of damage to the decoration.
22. Although the resident later chased the landlord about it arranging redecoration of the walls, there is no evidence that this was ever discussed or agreed. The wording of the stage two response is clear that it offered a “contribution towards the redecoration”, which the resident accepted.
23. The landlord also agreed to arrange to stain block and paint the bathroom ceiling as part of its stage two response. This was appropriate as stain blocking the new ceiling, which was installed as part of the repair, would be a necessary part of preparation for decoration. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to also paint the ceiling. This showed consideration of the resident’s disability, which would likely affect his ability to complete this task himself, in keeping with its complaints policy.
24. The landlord sent an operative to the property on 17 May 2022 to complete the work to the ceiling. However, the operative left without carrying out the work. The landlord’s records state that the job was aborted as the resident requested work that was not part of the order and “became threatening”. The resident’s email to the landlord that day states there was a “heated discussion” between him and the operative.
25. Although it may have been appropriate for the operative to withdraw from a contentious situation, this does not absolve the landlord of its repair responsibilities. There is no evidence that the resident was contacted after this incident to discuss either the issue of contention (the scope of works) or his conduct. The work was also not rebooked, despite the resident contacting the landlord on two occasions to chase this. This led to the resident arranging for the ceiling to be stain blocked and painted at his own expense several months later.
26. In summary, the landlord acted reasonably in including a contribution towards the decoration of the bathroom walls in its stage two complaint response. However, it failed to complete the agreed work to the ceiling, causing the resident time and trouble in chasing this up and eventually completing it himself.

Compensation of costs incurred

27. The landlord’s stage two complaint response offered the resident a total of £600 compensation. Although this is below the amount the resident had requested, (that being £629.41 on 24 March 2022 and a further £128.52 on 27 April 2022) the resident had included a cost of £299.99 for purchase of a carpet cleaner in his calculations.
28. There is no evidence the issue of water getting into the carpets was raised with the landlord prior to the resident’s escalation to stage two of its complaints process. By this point, he had already purchased the carpet cleaner, and so the landlord was not given the opportunity to address this, which it could have done at a significantly lower cost by arranging a one off clean. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to compensate the resident for his purchase.
29. The landlord’s award of compensation appropriately reflected all other costs reported by the resident as well as recognising the inconvenience caused to him. This is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to “put things right” by restoring him financially to the position he was in prior to the leaks occurring.
30. Although the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that residents are responsible for water damage to their possessions, the landlord appropriately used discretion to compensate the resident for the inconvenience of replacing his damaged towels. This is in keeping with its complaints policy.
31. In summary, the landlord’s offer of compensation at stage two of the complaint was reasonable in the circumstances and sufficient to restore the resident to the position he would be in had it resolved the leaks fully on its first attendance.

Determination (decision)

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to redecorate his bathroom following a leak.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to compensate him for costs incurred.

Reasons

34. The landlord failed to complete works to the bathroom ceiling as agreed in its stage two complaint response.
35. The landlord made a reasonable offer of compensation which considered both the costs and inconvenience incurred by the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

36. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should write to the resident to apologise for the service failure identified in this report.
37. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident additional compensation of £150 for the time and trouble caused to him by the service failure identified in this report.
38. The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

39. It is recommended that the landlord carries out a review of how it monitors the completion of repairs agreed as part of its complaints procedure to ensure that these are fulfilled.
40. The landlord should advise this Service how it intends to follow this recommendation within four weeks of the date of this report.