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

London Borough of Waltham Forest (202119814)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119814

Waltham Forest Council

27 March 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 the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs to the boiler.
    2. Handling of associated repairs.
    3. Response to a request for compensation for damaged possessions.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a secure tenant since January 1994. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. The resident reported a leak at her home on 21 December 2020. A contractor came the same day and found a leak in the hot water system. It turned off the hot water as a temporary fix.
  3. The contractor emailed a second contractor on 22 December 2020 and asked it to do the repair. The resident chased the repair on 22, 23, 24, and 29 December 2020. On 30 December 2021, the second contractor found it needed to install a new boiler and did this work on 11 January 2021.
  4. On 19 February 2021, the resident complained about delays and the number of calls she made to chase the repairs. She said she did not have hot water over Christmas and New Year. The resident said the contractor had not removed a water cylinder when it installed the boiler. She said the leak caused damage and she had told the contractor about this, but nothing had happened since.
  5. In its complaint response on 23 March 2021, the landlord apologised for the resident’s experience. It said it made errors and acknowledged the lack of hot water caused the resident inconvenience. It said it would arrange a surveyor to find out what repairs it needed to do. It offered £100 compensation for inconvenience caused by the loss of hot water.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 April 2021. She said the landlord’s response did not mention the losses caused by the leak. She wanted to know how it arrived at £100 compensation. The resident said she was disappointed with the quality of the survey on 31 March 2021 and wanted another survey.
  7. In its final response on 13 May 2021, the landlord said after the visit on 21 December 2020, the first contractor sent a message to the wrong email address, and this led to a delay. It acknowledged the resident had no hot water for 21 calendar days. However, it said as there were only 12 working days between the report and when it did the repair, it was difficult to say if it could have done the work sooner. It said it did not have recordings of the calls the resident made. The landlord said it had no information about the contractor leaving a cylinder in the property and asked the resident to report this.
  8. On the inspection on 31 March 2021, the landlord said a qualified surveyor did the inspection and it would not arrange another. On damage to personal possessions, it provided information on making an insurance claim and said it should have included this in its complaint response. It offered £50 for the email error, £50 for the quality of the stage 1 response, and £100 for time and trouble.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She wanted the landlord to explain why it did not get call recordings. She said it took 8 weeks to remove the cylinder, and the compensation was not satisfactory.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

  1. When the resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman, she wanted to know why the landlord did not get copies of call recordings and referred to the contractor’s responsibilities as a ‘data controller’. After considering the evidence, the Ombudsman cannot consider this part of the complaint. This is because paragraph 42.j of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that fall within the jurisdiction of another regulator. Complaints relating to data protection regulations are a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office. However, the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord dealt with the complaint about the resident’s calls appropriately.
  2. The resident complained about damage to her personal possessions. The Ombudsman cannot consider whether the landlord appropriately reimbursed the resident. This is because paragraph 42j of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord followed proper procedures and behaved reasonably when considering the request for damages.
  3. The Ombudsman has seen that following the landlord’s final response on 13 May 2021 the resident complained about the quality of the work done to repair the leak damage. The Ombudsman has determined that this is outside the scope of this investigation. This is because under paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler

  1. The landlord is responsible under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) for repairing installations for space and water heating. This means the landlord has an obligation to repair heating systems in the property. The landlord accepted responsibility for the repairs.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It says it will attend urgent repairs within 5 calendar days. These include leaking pipes and partial loss of water.
  3. Records show the resident reported a leak on 21 December 2020. The landlord dealt with the report as an emergency and the resident said a contractor attended at 8:00pm the same day. The Ombudsman has found the landlord’s first response was in line with its repairs policy. The contractor could not repair the leak and turned off the hot water, which stopped the leak. The Ombudsman has found this was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. In her complaint on 19 February 2021, the resident said the contractor told her she could turn the hot water back on to bathe. She said she did this, and water sprayed over her home and caused damage. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what the contractor told the resident as there is no record of this.
  5. On 22 December 2020, the contractor emailed a second contractor and said it did not have the part needed to repair the leak. It asked the second contractor to do the repair. The resident then chased repairs on 22, 23, 24, and 29 December 2020. On 29 December 2020, the second contractor became aware of the repair. It attended on 30 December 2020 and found it could not fix the leak and needed to install a new boiler. The second contractor did an installation survey on 6 January 2021 and fitted the boiler on 11 January 2021.
  6. In its final response, the landlord said an error happened when the first contractor sent an email to an officer at the second contractor who was not in work. It said if the resident had not phoned the second contractor on 29 December 2020, it would not have known about the repair until the member of staff returned to work. It said the email error led to a delay in the second contractor picking up the work, but the second contractor acted reasonably once it became aware of the repair. The landlord said due to the time of year, the contractor “did not immediately have a team to carry out the installation of the new boiler”. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the email error and £100 for the inconvenience caused by the lack of hot water.
  7. At the centre of the complaint is a question of whether compensation was enough in the circumstances and whether the landlord could have done more.
  8. Records show the second contractor attended on Wednesday 30 December 2020, the day after it became aware of the repair. It found it needed to fit a new boiler. On Wednesday 6 January 2021, 5 working days later, a surveyor assessed what work it needed to do to fit the boiler. The contractor installed the boiler on Monday 11 January 2021, which was 3 working days later. This means, because of the time of year, the contractor installed the new boiler 12 working days after the resident first reported a leak. However, the resident was without hot water for 21 calendar days.
  9. Had the second contractor attended before Christmas, it could have found it needed to fit a new boiler earlier and arranged for a surveyor to attend sooner. However, the landlord said that due to the time of year, the contractor did not have a team to install the boiler. The Ombudsman accepts that doing major work at short notice during a holiday period is difficult. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord could have fitted the boiler a few days earlier if there had not been an error. At the same time, the Ombudsman accepts that when a boiler needs replacing, there will be some days when a resident is without hot water. Because of the unnecessary delay, it was right for the landlord to offer compensation.
  10. The Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994 sets out compensation payments if “qualifying repairs are not carried out within a prescribed period”. The Regulations say the landlord should pay compensation at £10, plus £2 per day for the number of days over the “prescribed period”. In the case of hot water, the prescribed period is 1 day. This means the landlord should do the repair in 1 day.
  11. In this case, it took 21 days to complete the repair. This was 20 days over the prescribed period. If the landlord had used the Regulations to calculate compensation it would have offered £50 (£10, plus 20 days at £2). Because of this the Ombudsman has found that the £100 compensation for inconvenience due to having no hot water was reasonable in the circumstances.
  12. The landlord said that when a resident is without heating, it can provide temporary heaters. It said there was no practical alternative when a resident was without hot water. The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord could have provided the resident with an alternative source of hot water and agrees there was no practical alternative.
  13. The resident also complained the contractor left a hot water cylinder in her property for 8 weeks after it replaced the boiler. It is unclear from the records why the contractor did not remove the cylinder when it installed the boiler. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the cylinder was in a storage cupboard. It would have been better to remove the cylinder at the same time as the boiler, as a separate appointment caused minor inconvenience for the resident. However, the cylinder had been in the property for many years and its presence for a further 8 weeks caused minimal detriment to the resident.
  14. When the resident complained on 19 February 2021, she said she spent 3 hours on the phone chasing the leak repair. In its complaint response on 23 March 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident had not received the “best customer service” and said there had been errors. It said it would improve its service and provide necessary training to the call handler.
  15. The resident remained dissatisfied with how the contractor had dealt with her calls. In its final response on 13 May 2021, the landlord said it asked for copies of the recordings from the contractor, but it had not been given these. It offered £100 compensation for time and trouble.
  16. When the resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman she asked why the landlord had not been able to get copies of the recordings. It is the Ombudsman’s view that it is good practice to keep call recordings for a limited period as these can help with staff training and complaints. The lack of recordings meant the landlord could not investigate how the contractor dealt with the resident’s calls. It was positive the landlord acknowledged poor service and the need for improvement. But without details of how the contractor may have failed, it is difficult to say what needed to improve. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord reviews the requirements it has in place for contractors to keep a record of calls.
  17. Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord accepted responsibility for the errors and apologised for the way it dealt with the repairs. It said it had learnt lessons, explained the delays, and acted reasonably once the error was known. It offered £50 compensation for the email error, £100 for loss of hot water, and £100 for time and trouble. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was reasonable redress in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of associated repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will do routine repairs within 21 calendar days. It is the Ombudsman’s view that it was reasonable for the landlord to classify the damage caused by a leak as a routine repair.
  2. In her complaint on 19 February 2021, the resident said the leak had caused damage and the property smelt of damp. In its complaint response on 23 March 2021, the landlord said it would send a surveyor to inspect the damage. The surveyor attended on 31 March 2021.
  3. The Ombudsman has found the landlord did not follow its repairs policy, as it should have arranged a survey when the resident told it about the damage to her property on 19 February 2021. Instead, it did not arrange a survey until 6 weeks later.
  4. On 13 April 2021, the resident said she was not happy with the survey. She said the surveyor did not use damp testing equipment and did not check the floorboards properly. She said she had received a call from contractors to arrange the repairs but had asked them to “temporarily halt” the work as she was escalating her complaint and wanted another survey.
  5. In its final response on 13 May 2021, the landlord said there was no need to use a moisture meter to assess for damp because it did the inspection 3 months after the leak. This meant there was sufficient drying out time. It said it checked the structural integrity of the floorboards and found these were not defective. It said it was prepared to do repairs, but the resident had not agreed appointments. It said it would not do a further inspection as a qualified surveyor had done the survey on 31 March 2021.
  6. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the quality of the survey but has seen that the landlord said a qualified surveyor did it. The Ombudsman would expect a suitably qualified surveyor to do the inspection.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman has found that the final response was reasonable and there was no need to arrange a further survey. This is because a qualified surveyor had done the survey. It was reasonable to assume that any damp from the leak would have dried out when the landlord did the survey. However, there was a delay in arranging the survey as the landlord should have arranged it when the resident first complained. Because of this the landlord did not meet the timescales in its repairs policy and this was service failure.
  8. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman finds service failure when there has been a minor failure. Because of this, the landlord must pay the resident a further £50 compensation for the failure to meet the timescales in its repairs policy when completing associated repairs.
  9. In March 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman she was dissatisfied with the quality of work done and the landlord had not completed the repairs. Although the Ombudsman cannot investigate the quality of the work done after the landlord’s final response, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord contact the resident to arrange an inspection. The landlord should assure itself that it completed all repairs related to the leak.

The landlord’s response to a request for compensation for damaged possessions

  1. In her complaint on 19 February 2021, the resident said she had a monetary loss because the leak had damaged her possessions. She asked the landlord to pay for the damaged items and costs.
  2. In its complaint response on 23 February 2021, the landlord did not respond to this part of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has found this was a failure.
  3. The resident told the landlord it had not responded when she escalated her complaint. In its final response, the landlord apologised for the failure and gave the resident information on how to make an insurance claim. It offered £50 compensation for the quality of its stage 1 response.
  4. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was reasonable redress as the landlord quickly corrected the omission in its first response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord:
    1. On its handling of repairs to the boiler.
    2. On its response to a request for compensation for damaged possessions.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord on its handling of associated repairs.

 

 

 

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation for the failures found in this report. It must pay this within 4 weeks of the date of the report. It must pay compensation directly to the resident and not offset it against any arrears.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reviews the requirements it has in place for contractors to keep a record of calls.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contact the resident to arrange an inspection.
  3. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffers the £300 compensation offered in its complaint responses if it has not already paid it to the resident.