London Borough of Waltham Forest (202418510)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418510

Waltham Forest Council

27 February 2025

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the landlord did not return some of his phone calls and used withheld phone numbers when it did phone him.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a one-bedroomed flat within a block containing 6 flats.
The resident has vulnerabilities resulting from being autistic; this means that he requires communications to be ‘autism-friendly’. The resident has explained that this means no complex written communications and he has requested the landlord and this Service ring him before sending any written communication.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 September 2024 and said that he wanted to make a complaint that the landlord had used a private number when calling him on 8 August 2024. He said the phone number had been withheld and this had caused him to have a panic attack. He also said there had been 12 missed calls from the number on this day. The resident added that the landlord had previously refused to call him back when he had contacted the landlord.
The landlord registered a stage 1 complaint after being contacted by the Ombudsman and sent its stage 1 reply on 2 October 2024 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord had investigated the complaint and had found that one of its staff had contacted the resident on 8 August 2024 to discuss the resident’s concerns about the communal areas.
2. The landlord said that the staff member had phoned on a withheld number. The officer had chosen to use the withheld number option because of a problem with the software that meant residents receiving calls were seeing incorrect caller information.
3. The landlord said that the resident ended the call before the staff member could explain the purpose of his call or the reason he had phoned from a withheld number.
4. The landlord confirmed it had now instructed its staff not to call the resident on a withheld number. It also provided the resident with alternative ways he could report concerns about communal areas.
5. The landlord confirmed that its staff did not currently use personal mobile phones to call residents.
6. The landlord said it had not been able to find any evidence of officers refusing to call the resident back.
7. The landlord upheld the complaint, apologised and offered the resident £50 in compensation. It added that it was in the process of changing its call software application, which it anticipated would improve the call experience for both staff and residents.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 October 2024 and disputed the information in the landlord’s stage 1 reply. He said that the landlord had used an app call Telegram, which he felt was inappropriate. He also disputed that the call had been made from a withheld number because of software problems. He emphasised that he had had panic attacks because the number used had been withheld. Finally, he repeated that the landlord had refused to call him back on various occasions.
The landlord logged a stage 2 complaint on 10 October 2024 after being contacted by the Ombudsman and sent its stage 2 reply on 25 October 2024 in which it stated:
1. The landlord reiterated that its staff member did not call the resident from a personal mobile phone on 8 August 2024. However, it confirmed that under its ‘bring your own device’ policy it does permit staff to use their own devices. It attached a copy of the policy setting out the safeguards it had in place.
2. The landlord said it had found no fault in the way the stage 1 complaint had been handled and therefore it did not uphold the resident’s complaint about its handling of the stage 1 complaint.
The resident advised this Service on 15 November 2024 that he had been told by the staff member during the call on 8 August 2024 that he was calling from a personal mobile. (However, the resident later corrected this and advised this Service on 26 February 2025 that the staff member had said he was calling from a work mobile). The resident advised this Service on 15 November 2024 that he considered the landlord’s offer of £50 was insufficient to compensate him for the panic attacks the call had repeatedly caused him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response.
The resident reported to this Service on 9 October 2024 that the landlord had used an application called Telegram to contact him, which he considered to be inappropriate. This issue had not been included in his stage 1 complaint and had therefore not been addressed in the landlord’s stage 1 reply dated 2 October 2024. The landlord also did not address this issue in its stage 2 reply dated 25 October 2024. Therefore, based on the evidence seen, the view of this Service is that this matter has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process and is therefore considered to be outside the scope of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the landlord did not return some of his phone calls and used withheld phone numbers when it did phone him

The landlord had written to the resident on 2 August 2022 and stated: “As a reasonable adjustment, we will do our best to use our soft phone option when we call you, as this will show the council’s main phone number…rather than a ‘withheld’ or ‘private’ number”.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 reply dated 2 October 2024 that its staff member had phoned him from a withheld number on 8 August 2024. Therefore, this part of the resident’s complaint is not disputed.
The landlord explained in the stage 1 reply that the officer had called from a withheld number because he had been experiencing problems with the landlord’s normal phone system software. As the landlord had previously agreed in 2022 that it would do its best to ring the resident from its soft phones rather than withheld numbers, it was appropriate that it had provided an explanation of why the calls had been made from a withheld number.
The landlord confirmed it had now instructed its staff not to call the resident on a withheld number. This was a reasonable step to ensure that its staff would not ring the resident from withheld numbers in future. The landlord also provided the resident with alternative ways he could report concerns about communal areas. This was helpful to ensure that resident had alternative options for reporting communal issues.
The landlord reassured the resident in its stage 1 reply that the officer had not used a personal mobile phone to ring him. However, in his stage 2 complaint made on 9 October 2024, the resident disputed this and disputed the landlord’s explanation about why the officer had used a withheld number. The landlord reiterated to this Service on 24 February 2025 that the officer had used his work mobile to ring the resident and not a personal mobile.
On 26 February 2025, the resident spoke to this Service and accepted that the staff member had told him he was calling from a work mobile rather than a personal mobile. However, the resident was still dissatisfied because he said the officer had called from a private number, rather than the landlord’s published number and the resident said he had previously been assured by the landlord that its staff would not ring from private numbers.
The landlord apologised in its stage 1 reply that a withheld number had been used and offered the resident £50 in compensation for the distress this had caused.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will 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.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the distress that had been caused by its officer ringing from a withheld number. It sought to put things right by apologising for using a withheld number and offering the resident £50 compensation.
The resident advised this Service that he did not believe the sum offered by the landlord was sufficient to compensate him for the panic attacks he reported he had experienced. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states: “…we cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a resident’s physical and/or mental health, and we therefore cannot directly quantify this”. Furthermore, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing.
The Ombudsman therefore cannot assess the extent to which the calls from the withheld number may have caused the resident to have panic attacks and the impact of the panic attacks. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The Ombudsman does, however, agree that it was right for the landlord to recognise the general distress and inconvenience the calls had caused the resident.
The amount offered was £50 and this is in the range of financial redress suggested in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a service failure that may have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Given the circumstances relating to the service failure, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s offer was proportionate to recognise the general distress and inconvenience caused by the calls and to put things right in terms of this failing. The resident may wish to consider obtaining independent legal advice if he considers that the amount offered does not reflect the impact on his health and wellbeing.
The resident advised this Service on 9 August 2024 that he had received 12 calls from a “private number” on 8 August 2024 and he considered that this volume of calls constituted harassment. The landlord confirmed to this Service on 24 February 2025 that its staff member had phoned the resident several times on the day in question because he wanted to assist the resident with his enquiry. It was reasonable that the officer had wanted to assist the resident and had therefore tried to ring him on various occasions.
In terms of learning from outcomes, as previously stated the landlord said it had instructed its staff not to call the resident from withheld numbers in the future. The landlord had therefore learnt from the failing and had put measures in place to ensure it was not repeated. However, as the landlord had written to the resident on 2 August 2022 and said it would do its best to use its soft phone option rather than a withheld or private number, the Ombudsman has included a recommendation that the landlord remind its staff of this commitment.
The Ombudsman has noted that the resident expressed concerns about the landlord’s use of work mobiles generally as he considered them to be a breach of the data protection regulations. The Ombudsman discussed these concerns with the resident on 27 February 2025 and advised him that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about data handling, confidentiality, compliance with the Data Protection Act and the General Data Protection Regulation.
The resident stated in his stage 1 and 2 complaints that the landlord had not returned his calls. He later clarified to this Service on 11 February 2025 that he was referring to various times during the last 4 or 5 years when the landlord had not returned his calls. The landlord stated in its stage 1 reply that it had not found any evidence of its staff refusing to return the resident’s phone calls. Although the landlord provided a general response to the resident’s concern, in the absence of specific examples from the resident of officers refusing to return calls, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s response was reasonable.
Overall, this Service has found that the landlord offered reasonable redress as it apologised for its error, offered proportionate compensation and demonstrated learning from the failing.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process and the landlord’s complaints policy states:
1. It will respond in writing to all stage 1 complaints within 10 workings days of the complaint being logged.
2. If the landlord is unable to respond within 10 working days, it will inform the resident as soon as possible if an extension is required and give the reason(s) why. Any extension will extend to no later than an additional 10 working days from the original deadline.
3. If the complaint has not been resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, they can ask the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
4. The landlord will respond to the resident within 20 working days of the acknowledgement of the stage 2 complaint.
5. If, for any reason, the landlord needs more than 20 working days to respond to the complaint, it will explain why and inform the resident of the expected timescale for its response. Any extension will be no longer than 20 working days unless there is a good reason, which will be explained to the resident.
Following contact between the resident and the Ombudsman in August 2024, this Service wrote to the landlord on 9 September 2024 and provided details of the resident’s complaint. The landlord was asked to acknowledge the complaint and send a response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 September 2024 and sent its response on 2 October 2024. The landlord therefore took 8 working days to acknowledge the complaint and a further 9 working days to send its full response.
It was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord that it took 3 working days longer to acknowledge the complaint than its advertised timescale of 5 working days. The landlord then responded within a reasonable time (9 working days after sending the acknowledgement).
The resident contacted this Service on 9 October 2024 to say he was unhappy with the landlord’s reply. The landlord logged the stage 2 complaint on 10 October 2024 having been contacted by the Ombudsman on 9 October 2024. The landlord then sent its stage 2 response on 25 October 2024, which was 11 working days after the landlord had logged the stage 2 complaint. The landlord therefore responded to the stage 2 complaint within a reasonable timescale.
In summary, although there was a delay of 3 working days for the landlord to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint, overall the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within reasonable timescales.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports that the landlord did not return some of his phone calls and used withheld phone numbers when it did phone him.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £50 offered in its stage 1 reply if this has not already been paid.
The landlord should remind its staff about the commitment given to the resident that it would do its best to use the soft phone rather than a withheld or private number when ringing the resident.