Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel - find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202113615)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113615

Wandle Housing Association Limited

13 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the removal of a hanging unit above the resident’s cooker.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. In November 2020 the landlord carried out an annual gas safety check at the resident’s property. It said the cooker was unsafe due to the closeness of hanging shelving unit above it. The landlord removed the unit in December 2020.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord in April 2021. She said there were venting tubes hanging from the ceiling following the work in late 2020 to removing the shelving unit. The landlord explained the delay in completing the work was due to it seeking confirmation from its surveyor that it was safe to remove the redundant unit. It apologised for the delay, offered £250 compensation, and said it would complete the work, and make good the ceiling. This work was subsequently carried out in June 2021.
  4. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said her cooker broke in October 2019. She said she could not install a new cooker due to the outdated venting system above the cooker. She had to rely of ordering food and the help of her neighbours (this is understood as them supplying food) until July 2021.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenant’s handbook sets out that the landlord will carry out annual gas safety checks to ensure all gas appliances are safe. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of electrical witing, sockets, gas pipes, or any equipment supplied by it. It considers an emergency repair as one which is necessary to avoid danger to the resident, or serious damage to the property (uncontainable leaks, and the complete loss of heating or hot water). It will carry out non–emergency repairs within 28 days, or seven days if the work is deemed as being more urgent.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that it will offer compensation when a service failure has caused distress or inconvenience to a resident. It can also offer discretionary compensation in recognition of a resident’s time and trouble seeking a resolution. The policy does not specify how much compensation it will offer.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (available on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards between £50 and £250 for cases where there has been service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses (such as repair delays) but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint.
  4. The resident advised this Service that her cooker broke in October 2019 and that she was unable to use it until July 2021. However, the evidence provided for this investigation does not corroborate her version of events. Rather, the evidence shows that following a gas safety inspection in November 2020, the landlord raised a work order to re-position the cooker socket switch as it was not compliant with wiring regulations. It completed the work within nine days (within its timeframe for non-emergency repairs).
  5. The landlord also raised a work order to remove a hanging unit which was above the cooker as it was too close in proximity to the cooker and was deemed to be unsafe. It carried out part of this work on 18 December 2020 (again, within its 28 days routine repair timeframe). However, it did not complete the work as pipes were left hanging above the cooker which was what prompted the resident’s formal complaint. As such, the evidence does not show that the resident had a non-functioning cooker at any point. Therefore, the landlord would not be expected to compensate the resident further for any excess costs incurred in purchasing food. The landlord attended within its timeframe for non-emergency repairs which was reasonable as whilst the repairs were important, they would not be considered to be an emergency, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy as explained above.
  6. There was a delay of several months in removing the pipework and repairing the ceiling after this. This work was not carried out in line with the landlord’s published timescales for repairs. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation in its stage one complaint response. This was in consideration of the repair delay, distress and inconvenience caused, and her time and trouble. It also said it would complete the repair (removing the pipes, which it did in June 2021), and make good the damaged ceiling. It explained that the delay completing the work was due to it seeking confirmation from its surveyor that it was safe to remove the redundant unit. However, this explanation is unclear as the outstanding work was to remove the pipes as the unit had already been removed in December 2020.
  7. Whilst the landlord’s reasoning for the delay was unclear and ambiguous, its offer of compensation for the overall situation was still reasonable. This is because, although it is understandable that it would have been inconvenient not having the work completed for several months, the delay was not excessive, and no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the delay had a long term or adverse effect on the resident. The landlord acknowledged its shortcomings and took steps to put things right (offering compensation and completing the work). As such, it offered redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was reasonable to resolve the resident’s complaints s. The measures taken by the landlord to address what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £250 it offered previously (unless this has already been paid) as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.