Wandsworth Council (202118003)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118003

Wandsworth Council

15 December 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:
1. request to access the resident’s property due to a leak in her neighbour’s property;
2. response to the resident’s reports that the windows in her property required renewal.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy was assigned to the resident on 10 September 2018. The landlord is a local authority.

The landlord’s request to access the resident’s property due to a leak in her neighbour’s property

In March 2021, the landlord ordered an investigation of water ingress into the property below the resident’s home. The resident’s position was that the water was not coming from within her home, and that a plumber who had attended had advised her of this.
In May 2021 the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had attended her property several times but had not identified or remedied the problem affecting the property below. The landlord responded by seeking to confirm whether its operatives had attended in March.
In early October 2021 there were further reports of leaks in the property below the resident’s home during periods of rainfall. The landlord’s contractor considered that blocked drains may be causing the problem. After a further report on 20 October, the landlord’s position was that it needed to carry out a “destructive” survey to locate the leak but the resident was refusing access. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 October 2021 reminding her of the terms of the tenancy regarding provision of access and that it would force entry if she continued to refuse access.
The resident considered the landlord’s actions harassment, and said that this was causing detriment to her mental health and income. The landlord asked its officers to avoid the need to access her home but said it would contact her if this became necessary, and committed to update her on its progress towards remedying the leak.
The landlord’s drainage contractor’s view in November 2021 was that the leak was related to rainfall and not coming from service or supply pipework in the properties above, though it also said that there was pipework it was unable to inspect. It planned to inspect the exterior of the property before carrying out more investigative work in the property below the resident’s home. The landlord’s continued position was that it could not rule out that the leak may be coming from the resident’s home.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the windows in the property required renewal

In March 2021 the resident sent photographs of the condition of the windows at the property which were leaking and causing damage to the wall below. The landlord ordered its contractor to attend to the repair.
On 15 July 2021 the resident chased the landlord in relation to the window repair. The landlord in turn chased its contractor.
The resident contacted the landlord again in October 2021 as no repair had been carried out. The landlord’s contractor attended on 18 October but was not able to carry out a satisfactory repair. On 28 October the contractor recommended the landlord to instruct a specialist to visit and assess the window repairs. The landlord ordered this on 1 November. From the evidence provided it is not clear when this specialist attended.

Formal complaint

The resident complained to the landlord about:
1. its actions in response to the leaks, complaining that there had been several visits to her home despite there being no evidence the leak was coming from within her home;
2. the delay in remedying the problems with the windows in her property.
In its final response to the formal complaint on 29 December 2021, the landlord:
1. said that it would explore other options to identify the source of the leak in order to avoid returning to her property, and committed to keep the resident updated about its actions in relation to the leak;
2. apologised for the wording used in its letter of 25 October 2021 regarding her refusal to provide access;
3. noted that the resident had reported the window repair in March 2021 and that it had not carried out an inspection until September 2021;
4. advised that its contractor had concluded that the windows were beyond repair and required replacement to remedy the problem affecting the wall below, that the windows would need to be measured and custom made by a third party manufacturer, and that it was unable to provide an indicative timeframe for this process;
5. offered compensation for the wording used in its letter of 25 October 2021 and the delays in remedying the problem with the windows.

Subsequent events

On 14 January 2022 the landlord ordered its contractor to replace the windows.
In late January 2022 there were further reports of water ingress into the property below.
Following completion of the complaints process, the resident contacted the landlord several times complaining about its actions and omissions in relation to the commitments made in its final response, and ultimately made a second formal complaint, including that:
1. she continued to be contacted by the landlord requesting access to her home despite the landlord’s commitment to avoid this;
2. the windows had not been ordered or fitted within a reasonable time.
In March 2022 the landlord’s drainage contractor confirmed that it believed the leaks would not recur after sealant had been applied to areas of the property.
After a delay, the windows were ordered in April 2022 and replaced in June 2022. In response to the second complaint, the landlord acknowledged the delay between measuring and ordering the windows. It offered £150 compensation in recognition of the time taken to complete the repair and the distress caused. However, the landlord later advised this Service that this offer was a repeat of the offer made in December 2021 rather than a new offer in relation to the continued delays.
Despite the landlord’s contractor’s belief that the problem was resolved, the leaks into the property below the resident’s home recurred in August 2022. In response to the second complaint, the landlord said it considered the leak was related to drainage and it would carry out further investigation.
Since the second complaint concluded, the resident has reported that the window replacement has not remedied the problem with the wall below. She has also asked the landlord to re-assess the condition of the rear windows at the property, which it previously said were not in need of replacement.

Assessment and analysis

Scope of investigation

In her complaint to this service, the resident has advised that the leak in her neighbour’s property had been ongoing for ten years and investigations occurring in her property had been ongoing for over three years. In line with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman 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. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. As a result, this report will focus on the events from 23 March 2021, when the most recent work order to the resident’s property was raised.

The landlord’s request to access the resident’s property due to a leak in her neighbour’s property

In the resident’s complaint, she advised that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s contractors requiring access to her property on numerous occasions due to a leak in the property below. In accordance with the tenancy conditions, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property. As such, it is obligated to investigate the resident’s neighbour’s reports of the leak and take appropriate steps to identify the cause and resolve the issue.
It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the leak at the outset and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. Due to the intermittent nature of the leak in the neighbour’s property, this could cause significant delays in identifying the leak. The landlord has also identified that the leak occurred during periods of heavy rainfall, in which the conditions could not be replicated during the contractor’s tests.
The landlord initially raised a work order to gain access to the resident’s property on 23 March 2021, to trace and remedy the leak in the neighbour’s flat. The landlord then sent a letter to the resident on 25 October 2021, as the contractor had advised the resident would not allow access for an inspection. The landlord advised that by not allowing access, the resident was in breach of the tenancy conditions, which stated she must allow access to the property for repair works. While it is understood that the wording used by the landlord may have caused distress to the resident, it was reasonable that it cited the conditions of the tenancy agreement relating to access.
It was also reasonable that the landlord initially sought to schedule works to the resident’s property as the works were identified as necessary by the contractor. It is reasonable, in the absence of other evidence, for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified contractors in order to decide on the plan of works. Given the resident’s frustration that the landlord had already required access to her property numerous times previously and that the leak was still ongoing, it was appropriate that the landlord provided additional details regarding the works that had been carried out to the neighbour’s flat, and for the need to complete a further survey on her property.
Given the resident’s distress at the ongoing issues, the landlord appropriately informed her that further works at her property would be avoided and that its contractors would attempt to carry out the assessment using other means. It also appropriately measured her expectations that it was still possible that further works at her property may be required if its alternative attempts were unsuccessful
The Ombudsman notes that the resident requested compensation for the time she had taken off work in order to allow the landlord access to complete the repairs. In accordance with this service’s remedy guidance, the Ombudsman generally “would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a complainant for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out.” This is because the tenancy agreement states that residents are required to provide access for repairs so it would not be reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to reimburse loss of earnings for routine appointments. As such, the landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s compensation request was reasonable.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the request to access the resident’s property for necessary repairs was reasonable and was in line with the tenancy agreement and the advice of its appropriately qualified contractors.
However, the landlord failed to adequately follow its commitment not to attempt or request access to the resident’s property. Soon after its final response to the resident’s formal complaint it returned to requesting access and visiting the property unannounced. In response to the resident’s second complaint the landlord did acknowledge this and apologise, noting that one newer member of staff was not adequately made aware of the landlord’s response to the complaint before contacting the resident to request access. However, it did not comment on its contractor visiting the property unannounced, nor did it offer any redress for its failure to follow up on its commitments in response to the original complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the windows in the property required renewal

In accordance with the landlord’s repair policy, it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the resident’s property. As such, upon the resident’s reports of repair issues to the windows, it was responsible for inspecting the windows and arranging any subsequent repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The resident reported on 22 March 2021 that a section of her window required replacing. On 5 October 2021, the resident chased the work and explained that the wood underneath the windows had rotted. She raised concerns that the outstanding window repair would cause severe damp issues within the property. The initial delays in arranging the window inspection were significant, as the landlord did not arrange an inspection until September 2021. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its complaint response.
In its stage two response on 29 December 2021, the landlord noted its contractor had attended in September 2021, but that the resident was not satisfied with the proposed method of repairing the windows. It noted that its contractor had then attended on 7 December 2021 and determined that the windows were unsuitable for repair and could not wait until the next major works scheme to be replaced. In the landlord’s complaint response on 11 July 2022, it advised that although its contractor had measured the windows for replacement in January 2022, the contractor did not order the windows until April 2022. The windows were then scheduled to be fitted on 6 June 2022, but that these works were delayed due to COVID, so the work was then completed on 22 June 2022. The landlord acknowledged that there was a lack of communication and it could have liaised better with its contractors to ensure that the windows were ordered at an earlier date.
Overall, there was a significant delay in repairing the windows as it took over a year before the windows were replaced. This would have caused distress to the resident and also caused additional time and effort to pursue the repairs.
The resident advised this service that she was dissatisfied that the landlord only replaced the windows at the front of the property and not the rear, despite her position that these windows were also beyond repair. She also raised concerns with the appearance of the windows and that she was concerned this would lead to increased issues with damp and mould.
The landlord advised the resident that its contractor had determined the rear windows were not in need of replacement and may be replaced in the major works program scheduled for 2026. It advised that if any additional repair issues arose before then it could reassess the issue. The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns regarding damp and noted that an inspection took place on 13 June 2022, and that its contractor confirmed that the water ingress had been caused by the defective frame on the balcony windows. This would be resolved by the new window installation that was scheduled to be completed on 22 June 2022. As the landlord took reasonable steps to assess the resident’s concerns and its contractor confirmed that the rear windows were not in need of replacement, there is no evidence of service failure regarding the rear windows not being replaced.
However, the landlord’s offer of £150 redress for the delays experienced was inadequate. There was a significant delay of six months in the landlord making any attempt to attend to the resident’s reports of repairs needed to the windows. After deciding to replace the windows it ordered the work within a reasonable time and managed the resident’s expectations about how long it may take for the windows to be manufactured and delivered; however, a further unreasonable delay of around two months occurred when its contractor did not order the windows until three months after receiving the order from the landlord. The landlord missed the opportunity to monitor its contractor or liaise effectively with it, which may have helped to avoid further problems or, at least, keep the resident informed of delays. Instead, this delay caused further avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident who had explained she had arranged her working life around the expected delivery and installation being in April 2022. She also incurred avoidable time and trouble in chasing the landlord in this matter.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s position that the second offer of compensation was a repeat of the earlier offer demonstrates a significant failure in its complaints handling. In the complaint response which included this second offer, the landlord had identified further failings which effectively compounded the failings it had already acknowledged in its first offer of £150. It therefore would have been appropriate to make a further offer.
When making the second offer, there is no suggestion in the letter that this was a repeat of the first offer. Regardless of the fact that the Ombudsman considers this inadequate redress, if this was the case, it should have been made clear to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of its request to access the resident’s property due to a leak in her neighbour’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports that the windows in the property required renewal.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £400 in compensation within four weeks of the date of this decision. This is comprised of the:
1. £150 already offered.
2. a further £150 in respect of the failures identified in the landlord following up as committed in its initial complaint response.
3. £100 in respect of the failures identified in the landlord’s complaints handling.
The landlord is ordered to act as committed in its complaint response as regards access to the resident’s property. Until such a time when the cause of the water ingress into the property below is identified and remedied, if the landlord does require access to the resident’s property it should provide adequate notice as per the terms of the tenancy, in writing, explaining clearly why access is required with specific reference to the findings of inspections made by its staff and contractors. The landlord should write to the resident within the next four weeks to confirm it will comply with this order.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this decision to arrange a mutually convenient time for it to visit and inspect the interior and exterior of the bedroom wall which the resident reports is still in disrepair despite the windows being replaced, and to assess the current condition of the rear windows to determine whether they are in need of repair or replacement.