Wandle Housing Association Limited (202228991)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228991

Wandle Housing Association Limited

January 2024

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 response to the resident’s:
1. reports of an intermittent heating and hot water supply within her property.
2. request for it to refit laminate flooring within the hallway of her property.
3. associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat.
On 1 December 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the heating within her property had stopped working. Additionally, the neighbour living below the resident, reported to the landlord that a leak was coming through their ceiling. On 19 December 2022, the landlord’s heating contractor investigated the leak reported from the neighbour below, which resulted in the decision to cap the resident’s heating and hot water supply.
On 30 January 2023, the landlord instructed a plumber to inspect the flat of the neighbour below the resident, and identified a leak coming from the light pendant in the hallway. The plumber removed a section of laminate flooring in the hallway of the resident’s property and discovered a wet patch underneath. After further investigation, the plumber determined that there was a leaking pipe underneath the resident’s flooring, and as such, the pipe was replaced. The resident’s heating was also reinstated. However, the resident’s laminate flooring in the hallway was not refitted.
The landlord raised a complaint on behalf of the resident on 1 February 2023. It discussed internally that the delays, inconvenience, and impact caused because of the leak within the resident’s property, needed to be addressed within its complaint response to the resident. It also highlighted that the refitting of the resident’s laminate flooring in the hallway remained unresolved, and that this also needed to be addressed within its complaint response.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 15 February 2023. It acknowledged that to access the leaking pipe affecting the flat below, its contractor lifted a section of the resident’s laminate flooring in the hallway and was unable to reinstate her flooring as it was found. It explained that ordinarily where residents had installed their own flooring, residents would be asked to take up the flooring themselves. However, due to its urgency to resolve the leak, it took the decision to lift the resident’s flooring itself to avoid any further delays. The landlord explained that it would not reimburse the resident, replace, or refit her laminate flooring. However, it offered the resident £250 compensation for the impact caused during its attempts to resolve the leak. It also advised that its gas service would be in contact with the resident regarding compensation for a loss of heating.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 21 February 2023. She highlighted that the landlord raised a formal complaint on her behalf without contacting her in the first instance, and that the landlord had failed to discuss its complaints process with her during its investigation. Additionally, she stated that the landlord had failed to inspect the damage caused to the flooring in her hallway. She also expressed that she had continuously reported a loss of heating and hot water throughout 2022, and that she now wished to be rehoused.
Between 16 March 2023 and 16 April 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that on 10 separate occasions her boiler was displaying an error code, resulting in no heating and hot water within her property.
On 13 June 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. In this it acknowledged that several inspections had been carried out to the resident’s property, but explained that the resident’s boiler and leaking pipe affecting the flat below had been replaced. The landlord highlighted that the manufacturer of the resident’s boiler attended her property on 11 May 2023, and reported no issues with the boiler. It explained that according to the manufacturer, the error code displayed on the resident’s boiler did not determine what the problem with the heating system was, but suggested a potential blockage could be causing the gas pressure to drop.

The landlord also explained that it considered laminate flooring as an improvement, which the resident should have sought permission for before installation. Therefore, it would arrange for a carpenter to make safe the flooring, but only to the landlord’s standard. Lastly, the landlord advised that it would arrange for a supervisor and a multi-trade operative to attend the resident’s property on 20 June 2023, to remove and refit a waste pipe located below the resident’s boiler. The inspection would also involve putting together an action plan for the replacement of the resident’s flooring in the hallway, while also identifying any obstacles that may be contributing to a blockage in the heating system.
The resident contacted us on 22 June 2023, to ask for the complaint to be investigated. She told us that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was inaccurate as it was completed by a staff member who was not involved in her case, and had not discussed the case with her. She also told us that her boiler was still not working properly, and that she wanted to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for the repair of heating, hot water, and internal structural floors and ceilings.
The repairs policy explains a water leak that cannot be contained, a complete loss of heating between 1 November and 30 April, or a complete loss of hot water at any time, would be considered as an emergency repair. Emergency repairs are attended to within 2 to 4 hoursand completed within 24 hours. However, there will be instances where the landlord may need to return later and will look to complete the repair within 7 days.
The landlord’s repairs policy also states that it will ensure there is a good line of communication between itself and residents regarding repairs. It will effectively manage expectations for the completion of a repair and ensure residents are kept up to date on the progress.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that she is responsible for existing carpets or wooden flooring that may have been left by a previous tenant, and that she must request permission from the landlord before carrying out any improvements to the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an intermittent heating and hot water supply within her property.

As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked for detailed records relating to the resident’s boiler and her reports of an intermittent heating and hot water supply within her property. This would include records such as copies of any survey or inspection reports, feedback from employees or contractors, and an explanation of any work carried out. Very little of this has been provided, and if this information does exist, the landlord’s repair logs appear to be incomplete.
The resident has advised us of several occasions where the landlord’s heating contractor attended her property to restore her heating and hot water. Additionally, in the records that have been provided by the landlord, there are references to appointments or work carried out. However, there are no contemporaneous records reflecting these appointments, no information explaining what was investigated, and little information to demonstrate the competency of the landlord’s decision to treat the resident’s concerns as resolved. The landlord’s poor record keeping has led the Ombudsman to question the integrity of its repair records and whether they can be relied upon.
Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of a property, enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and demonstrates that its decision to log a repair as complete is based on evidenced and sound information.
Additionally, the landlord is responsible for the conduct of its contractors, and ultimately, the landlord is responsible for ensuring its contractors keep accurate records of contact with residents and can provide these to the landlord when required. As such, an order will be made for the landlord to create an action plan to demonstrate what improved processes and/or staff training it will implement to ensure it is capturing and recording comprehensive repair records from all its contractors when fulfilling its repair obligations.
From the evidence available, the Ombudsman notes that in an email dated 1 December 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there was no heating in her property. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, the resident’s report of a loss of heating would be considered as an emergency repair, and the landlord would have been expected to instruct its contractor to attend the resident’s property to restore her heating within 24 hours.

The resident’s email states that she phoned the landlord’s heating contractor directly and was offered an appointment the following day. However, due to a fear of nobody showing up and being without heating for the entire weekend, she made the decision to stay at her daughter’s house, and instead, an appointment was arranged for 5 December 2022.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns regarding a potential appointment being missed, we are satisfied that the resident was initially offered an appointment in line with the landlord’s emergency repair timescales. Residents are expected to provide reasonable access to the landlord’s staff and contractors as required, and it would therefore be unfair to find a landlord at fault for the delay caused by the resident’s decision to reschedule the appointment.
That said, in response to our enquiries, the landlord’s repairs log shows that the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 7 December 2022, but the resident was not available. Contractors returned to the property on 19 December 2022. The water for the heating was drained, and the resident was left with temporary heaters. From 19 December 2022 until 30 January 2023, the evidence shows that the resident’s property was without heating entirely.
This was inappropriate, as the landlord was obligated to treat a loss of heating as an emergency, due to it being in the middle of winter. Instead, the resident’s heating was fully restored approximately 61 days after her initial report, which was far in excess of the landlord’s repair timescales set out in its repairs policy and constitutes a significant service shortcoming by the landlord.
The landlord did not provide an explanation of its delay to restore the resident’s heating in its complaint responses, however, its email correspondence with the resident indicates that it was focused on resolving the leak affecting the property below in the first instance. The evidence shows that on 21 December 2022, the landlord sent an urgent email to the resident to arrange access to her property on 3 January 2023, to resolve the leak. The email explained that the landlord required confirmation from the resident within 24 hours or she would have to wait a few weeks before the appointment could be rescheduled. However, the resident has told us that she did not see this email until a few days later, by which time it was too late to confirm.

Given the urgency of the situation, the landlord should have called the resident or left a voice message if it was unable to get through. This would have ensured the resident received the message in good time, so that the leak and her heating supply could have been resolved much earlier than they were. Considering this, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord went far enough to meet its repair obligations in line with its repair timescales. Consequently, its delay to restore the resident’s heating understandably caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and a great deal of frustration, and she has told us she was left with no option but to stay with her daughter.
Additionally, while the Ombudsman acknowledges that an uncontainable leak would have also been considered as an emergency, the landlord has failed to demonstrate how it considered the resident’s wellbeing alongside the tenant of the property below. If it was essential to cap the resident’s heating and hot water supply while it attempted to resolve the leak affecting the property below, the landlord should have offered the resident temporary heaters or some other practical assistance while her boiler was out of use for such a significant amount of time. Moreover, as the resident was also without access to hot water, the landlord should have considered offering the resident temporary accommodation until her services were restored.
The landlord explained in an email to the resident on 30 January 2023, that had she not offered to stay with her daughter, it would have provided her with temporary heaters until it could restore her heating supply. The repairs log shows that temporary heaters were left at the property. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take to reduce the impact caused to the resident during the time her property was without heating and hot water.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response confirms that the resident’s heating supply was restored on 30 January 2023. However, the Ombudsman notes that between 16 March 2023 and 17 April 2023, the resident continued to experience frequent issues with her boiler, resulting in an intermittent heating and hot water supply. The resident also told us on 26 June 2023, that her boiler was still not working properly, and we have seen an email sent by the resident to the landlord on 8 November 2023, stating that her boiler had failed again. Consequently, the resident has explained that she has been unable to use the boiler in its normal format. Instead, she has been turning the boiler on in the morning, to take a bath, and turning it off again afterwards, to prevent the system from cutting out.

This suggests that the reported issues relating to the resident’s heating and hot water supply remain outstanding, and that the landlord has failed to establish the underlying cause of why the resident’s boiler continues to fail. This is especially concerning as not only has the resident potentially been without a fully functioning boiler for almost a year, but there is also a risk of her property being without heating and hot water during another cold winter this year. As such, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to instruct a suitably qualified operative to carry out a further inspection of the resident’s boiler, to determine the root cause of the system continuously cutting off. The landlord should share the inspection report with the resident and this service, outline how it intends to resolve the repeated issues, and set out what practical assistance it can offer the resident until it is satisfied her heating and hot water supply is fully restored.
Regarding the landlord’s communication, the resident has told us that she was unhappy with being directed to liaise with the landlord’s heating contractor directly and expected the landlord to have had a more proactive role in the handling of her concerns. Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably assess this point, as there are no records to demonstrate that the landlord requested the resident to contact its contractor directly, and there are no records summarising the contractor’s communications with the resident. However, from the evidence provided, the Ombudsman notes that overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was reactive and sporadic. It is possible that the resident did have to contact the contractor directly when she was entitled to expect the landlord to liaise with the contractor on her behalf.
We have seen no follow up correspondence sent to the resident to summarise the findings of inspections carried out to her boiler, and after the resident’s heating and hot water supply was capped on 19 December 2022, there was very little contact from the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations while her property was without heating. The landlord should have appointed a single point of contact to provide the resident with regular updates, keeping her informed of the challenges that were being faced, and how it intended to resolve the issues with her boiler permanently. Additionally, there is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water in March 2023 and April 2023.
Clear and effective communication on a landlord’s part is an essential element of all aspects of its overall service delivery, as this demonstrates to its residents that it is taking matters seriously. The landlord has failed to demonstrate to the Ombudsman that it kept a good line of communication between itself and the resident, as stated in its repairs policy.
In light of the landlord’s cumulative failings, the Ombudsman has determined that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of an intermittent heating and hot water supply.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s acknowledgment of the inconvenience caused to the resident while her property was without heating and hot water. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it has acted fairly in the circumstances, as it has provided no evidence-based breakdown of how many days the resident was without heating and hot water, which suggests that its offer of compensation was inaccurate. This also means that it failed to offer redress to put things right.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that where service failures have been identified, it may consider offering residents discretionary compensation. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also states that it offers £5 per day for a loss of heating and £5 per day for a loss of hot water.
The evidence shows that the resident reported a loss of heating on several occasions from 1 December 2022 until it was capped on 19 December 2022, however, the landlord has failed to acknowledge or account for this in its complaint response. Additionally, the evidence shows that the resident’s heating and hot water was capped from the 19 December 2022 until 30 January 2023, which equates to 43 days. This means the landlord should have offered the resident £430 compensation for the days her property was without heating and hot water during this period. Furthermore, the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water on several occasions between 16 March 2023 and 17 April 2023, which the landlord also failed to address.
Regarding learning from outcomes, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord has fully identified what steps it could take to avoid a similar issue from occurring in the future. As highlighted above, the issues relating to the resident’s boiler remain outstanding.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. The guidance suggests compensation from £600 to £1000 is appropriate for instances of severe maladministration by the landlord, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, has had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
Severe maladministration can include a landlord’s failure to comply with its own policies and procedures, issues that have remained unresolved for an unreasonable period and/or at the point of investigation, and behaving unfairly, unreasonably, or incompetently.
In this instance, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay the resident a 100% rent rebate from 19 December 2022 until 30 January 2023, as it would have been difficult for the resident to remain in the property without access to hot water, and she had to move in with her daughter temporarily.
Additionally, as the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it addressed or resolved the resident’s further reports of a loss of heating and hot water, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay the resident £180 compensation for the following dates:
1. 1 December 2022
2. 6 December 2022 to 15 December 2022
3. 16 March 2023 to 18 March 2023
4. 27 March 2023 to 30 March 2023, and
5. 5 April 2023 to 16 April 2023.
This amount equates to £5 per day for a loss of heating and £5 per day for a loss of hot water, as stipulated in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. For short periods without heating and hot water (a few days) the property would not be considered unfit to live in and therefore a rent rebate would not be appropriate for these periods.
The landlord should also pay the resident £350 compensation in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its errors. This amount is inclusive of the landlord’s earlier offer of £250 compensation which can be deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.
The Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay the above compensation to the resident directly and this should not be offset against any outstanding rent that may be owed to the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to refit laminate flooring within the hallway of her property.

In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the internal structural floor within the resident’s property. The landlord’s records confirm that following the repair of the leak, its contractor refitted the subflooring in the resident’s hallway. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord adhered to its repair obligations in this regard.
However, the Ombudsman also notes that the landlord sent an email to the resident on 21 December 2022, in which it advised the resident that it would replace her floor covering with a new floor covering once it had completed the works to resolve the leak. While the landlord’s email was ambiguous as it did not specify what floor covering it intended to use, its email suggested that it would be refitting a completely new floor covering and would have understandably raised the resident’s expectations. Prior to the commencement of works, the landlord should have clearly explained to the resident that it would not be refitting her flooring to its current standard, and it should have offered the resident the opportunity to remove the flooring herself to ensure it was removed correctly. Instead, the flooring was damaged when it was removed by the landlord’s contractor.
It is of paramount importance that when a landlord pledges to take a specific action, it is clear about what this will entail. A failure to do so creates unnecessary delay, uncertainty, erodes the resident and landlord relationship, and may result in formal complaints. As such, the Ombudsman concludes that there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for it to refit laminate flooring within the hallway of her property.
The Ombudsman will order the landlord to replace the resident’s floor covering in the hallway to the same standard it was found. Alternatively, it should offer the resident compensation to cover the reasonable cost of her replacing the flooring herself.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, its complaints policy states that it will ensure it understands what has caused the complainant’s dissatisfaction, what impact it has had on the complainant, and what the complainant wants the landlord to do to put things right.

The landlord aims to provide a complaint response at stage one of its complaints process within 10 working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will undertake a review of the complaint and will provide the complainant with a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
In this case, the landlord raised a stage one complaint on behalf of the resident but failed to contact her to capture the details of her complaint. Instead, the landlord inappropriately limited the remit of its investigation to only investigate the length of time it took to resolve the leak affecting the property below, and the refitting of the resident’s flooring. This meant that it failed to understand the cause of the resident’s dissatisfaction and what it needed to do to put things right, which was not in line with the pledge set out in its complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 21 February 2023, however, the landlord failed to provide its complaint response within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. Instead, the resident was provided with a stage 2 complaint response on 13 June 2023, which was 77 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint.
The landlord’s records explain that following the issue of its stage one complaint response, it phoned the resident on 15 February 2023, and agreed it would resolve her concerns without escalating her complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s records summarise the discussion that took place, and it is clear the resident expressed that her complaint predominantly related to a lack of consistent hot water and heating, prior to it being capped on 19 December 2022.
While the landlord may have agreed with the resident to resolve her complaint without escalating it to stage 2 of its complaints process, we have seen no evidence to demonstrate the landlord addressed or resolved the resident’s concerns as agreed. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have provided a follow up response to the resident outlining what steps it had taken in response to the discussion it had. As such, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord’s delay of 4 months to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint was reasonable in the circumstances.

Furthermore, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response failed to address the resident’s reports of a loss of heating and hot water prior to 19 December 2022. Its response stated that it had checked its repair records and acknowledged several inspections had been carried out, however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a vague attempt at addressing the resident’s concerns. The landlord should have listed how many reports the resident had made and how each report was resolved, to determine if there was an underlying problem that had been missed and whether she needed to be redressed for this. This would have demonstrated that the landlord fully considered the history and circumstances of the resident’s concerns, and whether it had fully met its repair obligations. It would have also enabled us to assess the scale of the issue, as the resident has told us she has been reporting an intermittent heating and hot water service to the landlord since 2021.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also failed to address the resident’s request to be rehoused. This was inappropriate. Residents should receive a comprehensive response to their complaints, which addresses all concerns that have been raised.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling. Where there has been a finding of maladministration, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, has significantly impacted the resident, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600 to put things right. As such, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to her in pursuing the complaint.
An order will also be made for the landlord to review the resident’s reports of a loss of heating and hot water since 2020. It should provide the resident with a comprehensive response addressing how her reports have been handled, and whether it has missed any opportunities to redress her for the issues she has experienced. The landlord should also address the resident’s request to be rehoused in line with any allocations and letting policy it may have in place.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of an intermittent heating and hot water supply within her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request it should refit laminate flooring within her hallway.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within five weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
1. a 100% rent rebate from 19 December 2022 until 30 January 2023.
2. £780 compensation consisting of:
  1. £180 for a loss of heating and hot water during December 2022, March 2023, and April 2023.
  2. £350 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its errors. This amount is inclusive of the landlord’s earlier offer of £250 compensation which can be deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.
  3. £250 in recognition of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to her in pursuing the complaint.
This compensation should be paid to the resident directly and not offset against any outstanding debt that may be owed to the landlord.
Within five weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. create an action plan to demonstrate what improved processes and/or staff training it will implement to ensure it is capturing and recording comprehensive repair records from all its contractors when fulfilling its repair obligations.
2. instruct a suitably qualified operative to carry out a further inspection of the resident’s boiler, to determine the root cause of the system continuously cutting off. The landlord should share the inspection report with the resident and this service, outline how it intends to resolve the repeated issues, and set out what practical assistance it can offer the resident until it is satisfied her heating and hot water supply is fully restored.
3. replace the resident’s floor covering in the hallway to the same standard it was found. Alternatively, it should offer the resident compensation to cover the cost of her replacing the flooring herself.

review the resident’s reports of a loss of heating and hot water since 2020. It should provide the resident with a comprehensive response addressing how her reports have been handled, and whether it has missed any opportunities to redress her for the issues she has experienced. The landlord should also address the resident’s request to be rehoused in line with any allocations and letting policy it may have in place.

The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance of the above orders to the Ombudsman within five weeks.