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

London Borough of Waltham Forest (202419389)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419389

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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that he received a neighbour’s gas safety appointment letter in error.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

  1. 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. 
  2. 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.
  3. The resident received a letter dated 17 July 2024 stating that the landlord’s gas contractor had booked an appointment to carry out the annual gas servicing on 14 August 2024. The contractor did not attend on this date and therefore the resident submitted a stage one complaint via the Ombudsman on 15 August 2024.
  4. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 2 September 2024 in which it advised the resident that his annual gas servicing was not due until December 2024 and it could find no evidence of the contractor failing to attend an appointment on 14 August 2024.
  5. The resident contacted this Service on 4 September 2024 to advise that he had checked the contractor’s letter and realised it was addressed to a neighbour and had been delivered to the resident in error. He stated that he still wanted to escalate his complaint because the letter had been delivered to him when it should have been sent to his neighbour.
  6. As a result of an error within this Service, the stage 2 complaint was sent to the landlord on 9 October 2024. The landlord replied on 1 November 2024 and stated the following:
    1.  The landlord concluded that receipt of the letter in itself should not have caused any distress, inconvenience or injustice requiring the landlord to take remedial action. However, it apologised for any confusion that had been caused.
    2. The landlord accepted that it had delayed responding to the resident’s stage one complaint and therefore offered compensation of £25.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 15 November 2024 to say that he opened the letter before realising it was addressed to a neighbour. He said he was distressed because the letter was on red paper and therefore he was worried it was a warning letter. The resident stated that the compensation offered at stage 2 of complaints process was insufficient to reflect the distress he had experienced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that he received a neighbour’s gas safety appointment letter in error

  1. The resident received a letter dated 17 July 2024 confirming that an appointment had been made on 14 August 2024 to carry out the annual gas servicing. The resident made a stage one complaint on 15 August 2024 because the appointment had not been kept.
  2. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 2 September 2024 in which it advised the resident that the annual gas servicing for the property was not due until December 2024. Therefore, it had found no evidence of the contractor failing to keep an appointment on 14 August 2024. The landlord’s response was reasonable as it had checked the records for the resident’s property and had advised him that it had found no record of the contractor failing to attend an appointment on 14 August 2024. At this stage, the landlord was unaware that the resident had received a letter that had been meant for his neighbour.
  3. On 4 September 2024, the resident contacted this Service to advise that he had checked the gas servicing letter and realised it had been addressed to one of his neighbours but had been delivered to the resident by mistake. He said that he wanted his complaint to be escalated because of the error made in delivering the gas servicing letter to the wrong address.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 1 November 2024. In the reply, the landlord confirmed that the complaint definition had changed since the resident made his stage one complaint and the complaint was now about the delivery of the gas servicing letter to the wrong address. The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that the receipt of the letter by the resident should not have caused him any distress, inconvenience or injustice.
  5. The contractor’s process map for arranging appointments to carry out the annual gas servicing states that the resident will receive an appointment letter by post to confirm the appointment for the servicing. The landlord also advised this Service on 18 February 2025 that the letter would have been sent by post as per the contractor’s process map. The landlord confirmed that 28-day and 7-day appointment letters for the annual gas safety check are sent to residents by Royal Mail. Finally, the resident advised this Service on 6 February 2025 that he thought the letter had been delivered in the post by Royal Mail.
  6. This Service has reviewed the letter dated 17 July 2024 and noted that the letter was correctly addressed to the resident’s neighbour. Therefore, based on the evidence seen, the Ombudsman has concluded that the letter was delivered in the post by Royal Mail and that they had incorrectly delivered the letter to the resident’s address.
  7. As the contractor had correctly addressed the letter to the resident’s neighbour, it was reasonable for both the contractor and the landlord to expect the letter to be delivered to the correct address by Royal Mail. Furthermore, having posted the letter, neither the contractor nor the landlord could reasonably have known that it had been delivered to the wrong address. The Ombudsman has therefore found there was no service failing on the part of the landlord or the contractor in terms of the gas servicing letter being delivered to the wrong address.
  8. The letter itself had a red banner across it, which said (in capital letters): “IMPORTANT – THIS LETTER CONCERNS YOUR SAFETY”. The resident has said that this caused him distress and he was worried that it was a warning letter. However, the landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that the letter should not have caused the resident any distress, inconvenience or injustice. The resident has advised this Service that the landlord did not discuss the complaint with the resident prior to sending the stage 2 reply.
  9. The Ombudsman’s view is that although the landlord was not at fault for the incorrect delivery of the letter, it was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had assumed the resident had not experienced any distress without speaking to him. A conversation with the resident would have given him the opportunity to describe any distress the gas servicing letter had caused him. The Ombudsman has, however, not identified this as a significant failing by the landlord. This is because the landlord was not at fault for the resident receiving the letter nor therefore for any distress it may have caused him. The Ombudsman has therefore found there was no maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process and the landlord’s complaints policy states:
    1. It will respond in writing to all stage one 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 one, 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.
  2. The resident contacted this Service on 15 August 2024 to say that he wanted to make a stage one complaint about the annual gas servicing. The Ombudsman therefore sent the information to the landlord on the same day and the landlord logged a stage one complaint.
  3. The landlord sent its stage one reply to the resident on 2 September 2024, which was 12 working days after the landlord had received the stage one complaint. The time taken by the landlord to reply was therefore slightly longer than its advertised timescale of 10-working days, which was inappropriate.
  4. The resident contacted this Service on 4 September 2024 to advise that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one reply and wanted his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The Ombudsman therefore wrote to the landlord on the same day. However, due to an error by this Service, the information sent to the landlord was incomplete. The Ombudsman sent the full details of the stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 9 October 2024 and contacted the resident on 9 October 2024 to explain the error and to apologise to him.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 1 November 2024, which was 17 working days after receiving the full details of the complaint on 9 October 2024. The landlord therefore responded within a reasonable timescale after receiving the details of the stage 2 complaint from this Service.
  6. The landlord used its stage 2 reply to acknowledge that it had not replied to the stage one complaint within its advertised timescale of 10 working days and offered the resident £25 compensation. As the period of delay was short (2 working days) and taking the circumstances of the case into account, the Ombudsman’s view is that the amount offered was reasonable to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report that he received a neighbour’s gas safety appointment letter in error.
  2. 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 associated complaints.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £25 offered in its stage 2 reply if this has not already been paid.