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

Waltham Forest Council (202205559)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205559

Waltham Forest Council

3 December 2024


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 response to:
    1. reports of a leak.
    2. reports of delays in providing information concerning the sale of the resident’s property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was a leaseholder of a second-floor flat in a block. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. Around May 2022 the resident asked if the landlord would ‘buy back’ her property as she did not want to sell it due to its condition and delays from the landlord in dealing with communal repairs. On 30 November 2022 following reports of a leak from another resident in the block, the landlord accessed the resident’s property and found she had patched up and painted the ceiling. On 7 December 2022 the resident advised that the patches and holes were visible again and the ceiling was damp.
  3. Between November 2022 and February 2023, the resident and her solicitor requested information such as service charges and major works bills from the landlord to progress the sale of the property. On 18 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said potential buyers of the property had been put off due to the leak from her ceiling which had taken the landlord years to fix. She added that there had been delays in providing service charges and major works bills. She said the situation had affected her mental health and wanted the landlord to buy back her property.
  4. On 10 March 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:
    1. While it worked to support leaseholders through the sale of their property, it was not always able to meet each lenders’ specific requirements.
    2. In November 2022 it issued a resale pack which included Section 20 notices regarding communal repair works from 2016 to 2021.
    3. It confirmed in writing that the 2016/2017 and the 2018/2019 works would not be recharged which should assist with the sale of the resident’s property.
    4. It was not buying back properties at this time, but it appreciated the impact of this situation and would support the resident where possible.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 13 March 2023. She said there were delays in getting bills for major works dating back to 2016/17 and that buyers were unhappy with retentions. She added that the service charges for the last 2 years were estimates and although the landlord had told her that the actuals would be ready by January 2023 this did not happen. She was also unhappy with the landlord’s response to the reported leaks which she said had started again after its stage 1 response. She again asked the landlord to buy back her property.
  6. On 9 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It partially upheld the complaint and repeated parts of its stage 1 response. In addition, it said:
    1. It apologised for the delay in responding at stage 2.
    2. There were no current plans or budget for a buy-back programme.
    3. It had not received the final major works account, so it was unable to issue the invoices.
    4. The planned works costs could be addressed by using the estimate from the Section 20 notice and deducting that amount from the property sale price or her solicitors could arrange a retention based on the estimate.
    5. It apologised that the leak problem had gone on for so long and acknowledged this had been a factor in the failure to sell her flat.
    6. A surveyor would visit the premises on 10 May 2023 to identify the source of the leak.
    7. It agreed to carry out the necessary repairs to her bathroom once it had identified the source of the leak.
    8. The bill for service charges was due to be issued before the end of June 2023.
    9. They would provide a future resale pack (if required) free of charge.
    10. It would offer £500 compensation, comprised of £200 for the delay in repairing the source of the leak for two years, £200 for distress and inconvenience of two failed sale attempts and £100 for the time and trouble spent chasing the complaint.
  7. In the resident’s referrals to this Service, she said she had found a buyer, and they had offered £20,000 less than what she had paid for the property which she asserted was due to the damage caused by the leaks. She said the landlord would carry out temporary repairs, but it had never properly resolved the leak which had caused serious distress to her and her family. She added that the landlord’s action or lack thereof had led to her losing 2 cash buyers. She was also unhappy with the delay in providing major work bills and service charge accounts. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to reimburse the loss of value of the property. The resident sold her property in August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised that the leak had been ongoing for around 3 years. Indeed, the landlord has provided this Service with evidence which shows historical reports of leaks as far back as June 2021. However, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (usually within 12 months) of the matters arising. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The historical issues provide contextual background, but this assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions and handling of reports of leaks from May 2022. This is when the resident first reported issues with a leak affecting her property in the 12 months prior to her formal complaint.

The landlord’s response to reports of a leak

  1. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is generally responsible for maintaining the structure of its homes including communal areas. In this case, it is not disputed the landlord was responsible for resolving the leak. The policy states that its contractor will attend to leaking pipes which require prompt attention within 5 calendar days. Routine repairs that do not fall under this category will be completed within 21 calendar days.
  3. Around May 2022 the resident asked the landlord whether it would buy back her property as she felt unhappy selling it to someone when the property was in a poor condition due to communal repair delays. The landlord’s repair records suggested that these communal repairs were likely related to a leak that affected at least 3 other flats in the block and had been ongoing for a number of months. While the landlord promptly responded to her buyback query it did not address the leak concerns. This was an oversight on the landlord’s part. As it had recorded similar issues in the past this should have put the landlord on notice that the leak still required attention.
  4. Indeed, the landlord’s repair records showed that despite being aware that this leak was likely affecting the resident’s flat it made no effort to assess the issue until 30 November 2022, when it inspected the property. Furthermore, the resident advised the landlord on 7 December 2023 that the ceiling was damp again. Its records suggested it had witnessed this and took photographs of the damage. However, it is unclear what or if any action was taken in response.
  5. The landlord’s repair records dated 3 February 2023 said there was a leak from another flat that had affected the resident’s property and that repairs were due on 10 February 2023. However, it is unclear what these repairs were or whether any work took place. In the landlord’s submission to this Service, it said that the resident had an ‘ongoing’ leak which was being managed by its asset team. It added that it did not know exactly what had happened as this was a repair matter. This is concerning and likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping as well as internal communication issues between departments.
  6. In this case, it is difficult to determine the exact course of events due to the lack of evidence. This Service has not been provided with a comprehensive record of communication between the landlord and the resident in respect of the reported leak. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. From the evidence available, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord acted in line with its policy timescales as set out above or that it satisfactorily managed the resident’s reports of a leak. As such a record keeping order has been made below.
  7. Nonetheless, the landlord’s final response did acknowledge that the leak had persisted for ‘so long’ and that it had been a factor in the resident being unable to sell her flat on 2 occasions. It added that it had not yet identified the source of the leak. In view of this, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident was left with a leak that had been ongoing for a prolonged period. This was due to the landlord’s inability to resolve the matter which had likely affected her living conditions and her ability to sell her flat at that time. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  8. Although the landlord offered compensation of £200 for the ‘delay in repairing the source of leak for a period spanning two years’ and a further £200 for the distress and inconvenience of 2 failed sale attempts, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this does not adequately reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests awards of up to £600 should be considered where a failure has adversely affected the resident. Further, the landlord’s compensation policy states that in cases where the distress was prolonged awards of up to £1,000 may be justified. Indeed, the landlord acknowledged that the leak remained unresolved for 2 years.
  9. In this case, there appeared to be some issues for the landlord accessing the relevant flat to identify the leak’s source, which has been factored in when considering an appropriate remedy. This Service recognises that the resident wanted the landlord to reimburse the loss of value of the property, however, it was not responsible for the resident’s decision to sell her property. Furthermore, the actual outcome of the lost opportunity is unknown. Nevertheless, the landlord acknowledged that there was likely a lost opportunity for the resident. Additionally, the distress was prolonged due to the length of time the leak had been ongoing. In view of this, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to reports of a leak and an order of compensation has been made below.

The landlord’s response to reports of delays in providing information concerning the sale of the resident’s property.

  1. When a resident raises a concern with a landlord, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to consider this, and provide a timely clear response, setting out its position. In respect of this aspect of the complaint, the key issues centred around delays in the landlord providing major works and service charge bills, which the resident said had affected the sale of her property.
  2. The landlord’s response to queries about the major works bills was timely and it explained clearly why delays had arisen and what the resident could do to progress with the sale of the property which included arranging a retention based on the estimate of the works. Further, it appropriately managed the resident’s expectations around timescales where it said it could take up to 12 to 18 months to obtain the relevant invoices from its contractors. Moreover, it showed a willingness to help progress the sale of the resident’s property by not recharging her for the major works from 2016 to 2019. This was appropriate and demonstrated that it had recognised the delay in issuing past years’ major work invoices.
  3. The landlord’s records showed that prior to the formal complaint, the resident’s solicitor had requested the service charge actuals for the years 2021 and 2022. On 15 December 2022 the landlord informed the solicitor that it anticipated that the service charge actual accounts for these years would be finalised by January 2023 and advised them that they could hold a retention if needed. While this was appropriate advice the service charge actuals were not finalised in January 2023 as anticipated. This led to the resident chasing the landlord for this information. The landlord responded promptly and stated there was a delay in sending the actuals due to staff sickness and anticipated they would be ready by the end of March 2023. It added that she would need to hold a retention if she wanted to complete the sale of the property prior to this.
  4. The landlord’s response was timely and clear and explained the reasons for the delay. However, it failed to provide the service charge actuals in March 2023. It appeared the landlord did not provide these until June 2023, some 5 months after its initial January 2023 anticipated date. Although the landlord apologised for this delay in its final response it did not offer any compensation to put things right. It is appreciated that the resident had the option of holding a retention and therefore the adverse effect of these delays was minimal. In any case, the delays were unreasonable, and the landlord failed to provide this information as anticipated on 2 occasions. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have expected the landlord to provide this information much sooner. As such an order of compensation has been made below for remedy.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s March 2022 Complaint Handling Code (The Code) said that at stage 1 landlords must respond within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. It adds that exceptionally landlords may explain to the resident a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. In this case, it took the landlord 15 working days to respond to the complaint at stage 1 and there was no evidence that it informed the resident of the delay. While this was a minor delay, the landlord failed to act in accordance with the Code.
  2. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request, and it took 38 working days to issue its stage 2 final response. This was contrary to its stage 2 complaints procedure which states that stage 2 complaints should be registered and acknowledged within 1 working day and a formal response issued within 25 working days. These were further failures on the landlord’s part that would have caused time and trouble to the resident who had to chase the landlord to progress the complaint.
  3. While the landlord’s approach was contrary to its usual procedure, it acknowledged this and offered £100 compensation in recognition. This considered the stage 2 delay and the time and trouble caused by chasing the complaint. Overall, the landlord’s offer was in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflected the level of detriment and was satisfactory in putting matters right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of delays in providing information concerning the sale of the resident’s property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
  1. Pay the resident compensation of £675 comprised of:
    1. £400 as offered in its final response for the delay in repairing the source of the leak and the distress and inconvenience caused by two failed sale attempts.
    2. A further £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to reports of a leak.
    3. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in providing information concerning the sale of the resident’s property.
  1. Review its record keeping in this case and its staff training needs regarding their application of its repairs, to ensure that the landlord’s departments communicate effectively with one another and responsive repairs such as this are promptly completed and fully remedied in every case. It must demonstrate that it has considered implementing a system that provides clear and detailed information on repairs as detailed in the Ombudsman’s report of May 2023 entitled “Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) – on the record” (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). 
  1. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation as offered in its final response for its complaint handling failures. This Service has found reasonable redress based on the landlord paying this amount to the resident.