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

Wandsworth Council (201914344)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914344

Wandsworth Council

19 March 2021


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor communication and staff conduct.
    3. The landlord’s complaints handling. 

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 2 bedroom flat, under a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord since 2011. The property has a front door and a fire escape door, both of which open onto enclosed communal corridors.
  2. The landlord’s records show that in 2013 the resident first reported that the flat felt cold and that there were draughts from the windows, front door and fire door. The landlord installed 2 new radiators at the property and fitted draught excluders to the doors, however, the resident still reported that the property felt cold. Following an inspection of the windows, repairs were completed and the resident reported that the property now felt warmer.
  3. Further works were carried out to the windows in 2014 and 2015, although the resident continued to report that the windows were stiff and draughty. Contractors attended to inspect and found the windows to be in good working order. Works were completed in 2016 to ease and adjust the front door and to 2 windows that were not closing properly.
  4. On 19 March 2018, the landlord’s records show that a works order was raised to supply and fit a door closer to the front door, replace a panel above the front door, renew the kitchen door with a fire door, fix the fire escape door handle and repair cracks. The landlord states that contractors were unable to gain access to complete these works. Works to install a door closer were completed in December 2018.

Summary of Events

  1. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 28 October 2019 about its failure to complete repairs at her home. She raised concerns about a fire door, which she stated did not shut tightly, causing draughts, and which had not been painted with fire resistant paint. She also stated that the windows at the property were draughty. The resident noted that she had been advised by her Estates Manager to remove extension leads from the property and that the landlord had said it would install additional wall sockets. This work had not been completed. The resident requested compensation for the impact of the delays on her health and for the work to be completed.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident on 5 November 2019, noting that a repairs order had been raised for works to the front door and kitchen door of the property. The landlord explained that following a fire safety inspection, advice had been given to resident’s about the overloading of sockets with the use of extension cables. The landlord confirmed that although it had indicated that additional sockets may be installed where the layout of existing sockets was impractical or insufficient, no order had been raised for these works in relation to the resident’s property. The landlord offered to visit the resident’s property to inspect the number and location of sockets and to assess her concerns about the fire door. 
  3. Following the complaint, the landlord completed an inspection of the property on 14 November 2019. A works order was authorised that day to ‘paint kitchen door, plaster wall, fill hole in hall cupboard, overhaul fire escape door’ and the resident was informed of the proposed works by email. An appointment was made to attend the property to complete the works on 9 December 2019 but the contractor could not gain access on that date.
  4. On 25 November 2019, the landlord raised a works order with its contractor to overhaul draughty windows at the property. The landlord states that its contractors made 2 attempts to attend the property to complete the repairs on 2 and 9 December 2019 but were unable to gain access. An appointment was then made for 29 January 2020, which was later rescheduled to 7 February 2020 at the resident’s request.
  5. Repairs to the windows were completed at some point in January or February 2020, following which, the resident raised concerns about the standard of works. The landlord attended to inspect and it was agreed that the repairs had not been completed to a satisfactory standard.
  6. Contractors were again unable to gain access to the property on 7 February 2020. On 11 February 2020 the resident informed the landlord that she had not yet heard from the window contractors to arrange an appointment to reattend. At this time, an order was raised with an alternative, specialist contractor to overhaul the draughty windows. Contractors attended on 18 February 2020 but reported that they were unable to gain access.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 3 March 2020 regarding her complaint about the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs. The specialist contractor attended to complete repairs to the windows and doors in the front room on 10 March 2020, however, the resident advised that she was still awaiting contractors to attend to paint the kitchen door.
  8. Following contact from this Service, the landlord provided a formal stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 20 March 2020, summarising the work it had undertaken in response to her complaint of 28 October 2019. It noted that some works were outstanding and would be completed as soon as possible. The landlord confirmed that it had inspected the property and assessed the provision of sockets, and had found that this was adequate. Advice had been given to the resident about not overloading the sockets. The landlord apologised for the unsatisfactory work carried out by the original window contractor and the time taken to resolve the issue. The landlord noted that contractors had failed to gain access to the property on some occasions and acknowledged one occasion where the contractor had accepted responsibility for a missed appointment due to a miscommunication on their end. The landlord advised the resident that the remaining works may be delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  9. The resident clarified on 26 March 2020 that the outstanding works were to fully paint the kitchen door, repair a hole in her hallway cupboard and fix the fire door. She requested compensation for additional expenditure on gas and electricity due to the flat being draughty and requested that the windows be inspected and serviced annually.
  10. On 30 April 2020 the landlord confirmed to the resident that arrangements would be made for the remaining work to be completed once COVID restrictions had eased. This email inaccurately stated that the landlord did not pay compensation. It has since clarified that it does occasionally pay compensation. The landlord encouraged the resident to report any future defects, as this it how is responds to repairs, declining the request for annual inspections. The resident repeated her request for the outstanding works to be completed and for the annual inspection of her windows in an email dated 1 May 2020. The landlord’s contractor attended to paint the kitchen door on 30 June 2020.
  11. The resident then escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 2 July 2020. The resident referred to the poor quality of repair to her windows and repeated the request for an annual inspection. The resident confirmed that she was now satisfied with the repair to the windows and the kitchen doors. The landlord had indicated that the hole in the cupboard would be filled in the coming week. The resident referred to historic repairs issues, dating back to 2012, and stated that she felt staff had been unhelpful. She noted her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s appointment system for repairs and complained about the time spent pursuing the repairs and taking time off work to await contractors.
  12. Contractors attended the property to fill a hole in the hallway cupboard on 20 July 2020 but the resident refused to allow access on this date, stating that it was not convenient. This job was subsequently completed on 10 September 2020.
  13. The landlord provided a response at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 4 August 2020. It confirmed that the resident’s kitchen door had now been painted and arrangements made for the hole to be filled. It noted that it had instructed a specialist contractor to attend to adjust the windows in February 2020. The landlord would not commit to annual inspections of the windows but confirmed it would respond to reports of any defects promptly. The landlord explained why it operates an appointment system where a morning or afternoon timeslot is provided, rather than a specific time. The landlord accepted that there were delays in completing the repairs to the windows since contractors attended in November 2019 and offered the resident £100 compensation, to be deducted from her rent arrears.
  14. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint on 11 August 2020. She repeated her concerns about the information provided by her Estate Manager, stating that she was ‘disrespectful, rude, passive aggressive and cold hearted’ and had failed to address the reports of cold in the property. She believed she had been moved to a property that did not suit hers or her son’s needs. The resident also complained that the landlord had sent someone without the appropriate professional experience to repair her windows. She stated that she did not believe £100 was adequate compensation, as she had been raising the issue of draughty windows at the property for years, referring to the additional expenditure on heating during this period. The resident complained about the landlord’s communication, noting that it had said she had cancelled appointments when she had not. The resident then sent a follow-up email detailing the issues she had experienced since 2014, which included, no water in the bathroom, cold, an unsecure front door, cracks in the ceiling, and unsafe windows and fire escape.
  15. The landlord provided a final response at stage 3 of its complaints process on 21 September 2020. It noted that the resident did not believe that the £100 compensation offered was sufficient given the range of repairs and other issues that she had experienced since 2011. The landlord outlined the various repairs raised since 2013 and concluded that in general it had responded appropriately and in a timely manner. The landlord acknowledged the poor standard of works to the windows in November 2019 and that there was a delay in effectively repairing the windows until February 2020. The landlord apologised if the resident had been provided with inaccurate information about the use of extension leads but noted that this had subsequently been clarified by the Senior Estates Manager. The landlord noted that the resident had not provided any evidence to support the allegations about the conduct of her Estates Manager but if provided, this would be raised with the member of staff directly. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and concluded that the offer of £100 compensation was appropriate and proportionate. The resident was referred to this Service should she remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

  1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property under the terms of the tenancy agreement and tenancy conditions. It is accepted that this includes repairs to the doors and windows at the property. The landlord is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable time of the repair being reported.
  2. The resident complained on 28 October 2019 that the landlord has failed to adequately address her reports of cold and draughts at the property over a number of years. The landlord is expected to ensure that its properties are safe and free from hazards, including excessive cold, which is capable of constituting a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The landlord would therefore be expected to investigate reports of excessive cold and to consider any necessary remedial action, including rectifying disrepair to doors and windows that may be contributing to low temperatures. It is accepted that it may not, however, be possible to completely eradicate the presence of draughts, or to ensure that a property is consistently of a temperature that is acceptable to the resident.
  3. The evidence provided indicates that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate and address the resident’s reports of cold and draughts. In 2013, an inspection took place, additional radiators were installed and works were completed to fit draught excluders and to adjust the windows, after which the resident indicated that the temperature had improved. The landlord has provided evidence to this investigation, in the form of emails and repairs logs, demonstrating that it took appropriate steps to respond to further reports of draughts between 2014 and 2016, completing works to adjust windows and doors. It appears that some further repairs were not completed when raised in 2018, however, the landlord has indicated that this was due to a failure to gain access.
  4. In response to the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord reviewed the repairs history at the property and stated that it would organise a further inspection to determine whether additional works were required. This was promptly arranged and the landlord recorded the necessary repairs and instructed its contractor accordingly. A copy of the works order was provided to the resident, indicating that the landlord took reasonable steps to be transparent, to keep her updated and to reassure her that it was working to address the issues raised.
  5. The landlord has accepted that repairs to the windows were not initially completed to the required standard, resulting in delays. Other repairs were evidently delayed by a combination of alleged failure to gain access to the property and due to the restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the nature of the repairs, it was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that non-urgent repairs would not be completed until restrictions were eased, given the need to manage its resources and to prioritise urgent repairs.
  6. The landlord made several attempts to arrange for the repairs to be completed prior to the resident contacting this Service on 3 March 2020. Contractors reported that they were unable to gain access to the property as agreed on 2 and 9 December 2019, and on 7 and 18 February 2020. The landlord also rearranged an appointment scheduled for 29 January 2020 at the resident’s request. The resident has denied that she has cancelled appointments, or that contractors attended and were unable to gain access. It is generally reasonable for the landlord to rely on the reports of its contractor regarding failed access, however, it should take care to ensure that contemporaneous notes are recorded on its system, and that this is followed-up with the resident. The resident is reminded that she is obliged under her tenancy agreement to provide access for repairs to be completed.
  7. The Ombudsman is satisfied that since the formal complaint the landlord has taken steps to progress the repairs within a reasonable timeframe and has acknowledged and accepted responsibility for any unreasonable delays caused by the standard of workmanship of its contractor. It has offered £100 compensation in recognition of the time taken to complete a satisfactory repair to the windows which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion is a reasonable and proportionate means of resolving this aspect of the complaint.
  8. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s repairs records show that works to the paint the kitchen door, plaster, fill a hole in the hallway cupboard and overhaul the fire door were completed on 7 February 2020, however, this does not reflect the chronology provided to this Service, which indicates that some of these works remained outstanding after that date. According to the chronology, an order to fill the hole in the hallway cupboard was re-raised in March 2020, and painting of the kitchen door was not completed until 2 July 2020. The landlord is advised to ensure that repairs are accurately recorded on its systems and that jobs are not marked as completed where works have yet to be carried out, to avoid confusion and delays in the future. 
  9. Whilst it is acknowledged that it has been frustrating for the resident that she continues to find the property cold and that draughts have reoccurred despite previous works, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps to investigate the issues on receipt of the resident’s complaint. It then followed-up with appropriate actions to progress the repairs it was responsible for. Although it is clear that there were delays in completing some non-urgent repairs, the landlord has provided a reasonable explanation and has offered proportionate compensation where it has identified service failure.

Communication and Staff Conduct

  1. The resident has complained that the landlord provided inaccurate information about the use of extension leads in her property, causing her considerable stress as she was fearful of a fire risk. The resident believed that the landlord would be fitting additional sockets, although no evidence has been provided to this Service indicating that these works were agreed. Following the complaint, the landlord attended to inspect the property to determine whether the installation of additional sockets was required and concluded that the existing arrangement was adequate. Providing an apology for any misinformation provided, clarifying the landlord’s policy on the use of extension leads and conducting an inspection was an appropriate and proportionate response to this aspect of the complaint.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about the conduct of her Estates Manager, stating that she has found her to be unhelpful, disrespectful and rude. In light of the fact that the resident has made general comments about a staff member’s manner, without referring to specific incidents, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek additional information from the resident before addressing this with the member of staff directly. The landlord would not now be expected to investigate historic allegations about the conduct of staff members and any further incidents of inappropriate behaviour by members of staff should be reported to the landlord promptly. It is clear that the resident’s relationship with her Estates Manager has deteriorated, and so the landlord may wish to consider whether there are ways of restoring trust or improving communication between the parties.
  3. Having reviewed the evidence provided to this investigation, it is clear that the landlord has kept in regular contact with the resident about the issues raised and sought to communicate with her to resolve her concerns. It has clarified misinformation that may have been provided previously and apologised for instances where its staff could have communicated more effectively. The Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of poor communication and staff conduct.

Complaints Handling

  1. A copy of the landlord’s current complaints procedure has been provided to this investigation, indicating that it now operates a 2 stage complaints process. This document was published in January 2021 and so it is not known how the complaints procedure differed prior to that date. It is noted, however, that the resident’s complaint was considered at 3 stages.
  2. It was not clear from the landlord’s response of 5 November 2019 whether this was intended as a formal stage 1 response. A further response was provided following the intervention of this Service. The landlord should take care to clearly explain the stage at which a complaint is being considered, and how to escalate a complaint to the next stage. The landlord has generally responded to the resident’s complaint in a reasonably timely fashion and the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no detriment to the resident where timescales exceeded those set out in its current procedure, as it simultaneously sought to progress the repairs and to keep the resident informed of any delays.
  3. The landlord’s stage 3 response addressed new issues raised by the resident in her stage 3 escalation request, including a number of historic repairs issues. The Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to investigate complaints about historic issues where a formal complaint was not raised within 6 months of the matter arising. The landlord has used its discretion to take into account the wider repairs history at the property and to consider whether it has generally responded appropriately and in a timely manner. This demonstrates a genuine willingness to look to identify patterns of service failure and to learn from the broader context of complaints.
  4. The resident has complained about the level of compensation offered by the landlord for the service failure identified. The landlord has adopted this Service’s guidance on compensation, which states that compensation of £100 will be appropriate in cases where there has been a failure to meet service standards but there was no significant impact. Compensation was awarded for the delay in completing repairs to the resident’s windows. Although this delay resulted in inconvenience, as further appointments were required to rectify poor workmanship, the detriment caused to the resident was not significant. The landlord has also apologised for its failings, which in some cases may be all that is necessary to resolve a complaint.
  5. The Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling, as it has taken reasonable steps to investigate the complaint and to put things rights for the resident where failings have been identified. The remedies offered by the landlord have been fair and proportionate to the level of service failure identified.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman is satisfied that, following the intervention of this Service, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident that reasonably resolves the complaint about repairs to your property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about communication and staff conduct.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlords’ complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. Following the formal complaint of 28 October 2019 the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s reports of disrepair at the property and to complete any repairs identified that it was responsible for. Whilst the landlord identified delays in completing some of the works, it kept the resident updated and has offered £100 compensation in recognition of the fact that there was an unreasonable delay in resolving the issue with the resident’s windows. This was a satisfactory response to this aspect of the complaint.
  2. The landlord has communicated clearly and frequently with the resident and has responded to her correspondence and reports of issues at the property in a timely manner. The landlord has offered to conduct further investigations into the conduct of its staff member on the provision of additional information.
  3. The landlord has taken appropriate steps to investigate and respond to the resident’s complaint and has provided an apology and a proportionate offer of compensation where service failure has been identified. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has acted fairly and taken reasonable steps to put things right for the resident.