Waltham Forest Council (202230072)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230072

Waltham Forest Council

22 November 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 handling of the resident’s report that the locks on her pram shed were changed and personal items removed.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 7 July 2014. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 1 bedroom flat and comes with the use of a pram shed.
4. The evidence suggests that the resident had spoken to her neighbourhood officer in mid-2021 as she had tried to access her shed but had been unable to as the lock had changed. She contacted the neighbourhood officer again on 2 December 2021 to ask if the landlord would change the locks so she could gain access again.
5. The landlord agreed to this on 7 December 2021 and said it would raise a job with its contractor who had a backlog so it could not confirm when the lock change would take place.
6. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 July 2022 to ask for an update. Its contractor arranged an appointment, and the locks were changed on 30 September 2022.
7. The resident raised a formal complaint on 13 October 2022. The key points were as follows:
   1. She had realised in December 2021 that she could no longer access her pram shed. The resident reported it to her neighbourhood officer at the time and the landlord agreed to change the locks.
   2. The resident discovered, when the contractor changed the lock, that her personal belongings had gone, and the resident of the neighbouring block had use of her pram shed.
   3. That neighbour informed the resident that the neighbourhood officer was present at the tenancy sign up when it gave her the shed keys and said the landlord had arranged for the shed to be emptied.
   4. The resident said she had lost her personal items; she could not get them back and some items were sentimental.
8. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 8 November 2022. They key points were as follows:
   1. The landlord confirmed its understanding of the complaint and that it had spoken to both the tenancy officer and its places officer to gain an understanding of the issue.
   2. It confirmed it was unable to figure out why the locks had been changed and could find no records to confirm who changed the locks or removed items.
   3. It had spoken to the resident of the neighbouring block and was unclear why there had been confusion about shed ownership in the first place.
   4. It confirmed it did not uphold the complaint as a lack of evidence meant it could not decide who was responsible and therefore could not take the matter further.
   5. The landlord recommended that the resident report any stolen items to the police and to claim for lost items on her insurance.
9. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 18 November 2022. The key points were as follows:
   1. She found the complaint response to be unprofessional and lacked any investigation.
   2. The mismanagement of the shed was not the resident’s responsibility and therefore it was not her responsibility to provide evidence to the landlord.
   3. The resident confirmed she had spoken to the neighbour involved who had confirmed to her that the landlord was aware her belongings were removed.
   4. The resident said she felt fobbed off and that she worked hard for her items which the landlord had just thrown away.
10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 February 2023, in which It gave a history of the complaint and confirmed it had looked at the stage 1 response and feedback from its housing places and building services to investigate the issue. The key points were as follows:
    1. It confirmed the history of lock change requests for the resident’s pram shed and confirmed it had changed the lock, at the resident’s request, on 30 September 2022.
    2. It said that there may have been confusion about the shed in that the neighbouring resident may have been given the shed for use.
    3. Its records showed that on 11 September 2019, the neighbour requested a lock change as the keys did not work. The landlord speculated that the contractor may have changed the lock of the resident’s pram shed and given the keys to the resident in the neighbouring block. It confirmed that given the passage of time, it was not possible to prove with certainty if that did happen.
    4. It understood that the resident of the block had been using the resident’s shed since she received the keys in 2019.
    5. It confirmed its places service team do not remove items from pram sheds, but it appeared that someone acting on behalf of the other resident may have removed the resident’s items.
    6. It said while it was sorry, the loss was not something it could deal with as part of the complaint process and directed the resident to make a claim against the council.
    7. It concluded that it was unable to conclude is there was any fault by the landlord in the change of lock on the shed but on the balance of probabilities it accepted that its contractor may have inadvertently changed the lock to the resident’s shed meaning the key was given to the wrong resident.
11. In bringing the complaint to this Service, the resident requested an apology from the landlord to acknowledge the stress caused and compensation for the items thrown away, which she valued at no more than £500.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is determined by its jurisdiction. Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme sets out that this Service may not consider complaints that a resident did not bring to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be 12 months. While the Ombudsman understands that the resident did not discover an issue with her lock until December 2021, this investigation will not focus on the actions of the landlord at the time it is believed the lock may have been changed in 2019. Any mention of this is for context only. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions following the resident reporting the issue on 2 December 2021.

Policies and procedures

13. The landlord’s complaint policy, which was in place at the time of this complaint, sets out that the landlord should respond within 20 working days at stage 1 and within 25 working days at stage 2.

Lock change

14. The resident reported to the landlord on 2 December 2021 that her lock was no longer working and the landlord appropriately arranged to change the locks.
15. The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 July 2022 asking for an update on the above. While there is also an onus on the resident to communicate with landlord’s, the landlord had not communicated with the resident in this time, and she therefore had no choice but to chase the landlord for a response. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord had communicated any reasoning for its delay to the resident. While it was aware that its contractor had a backlog, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have kept in contact with the resident to manage her expectations.
16. The evidence suggests that the landlord did not then raise a repair request until 9 September 2022; a further 2 months after the resident had put in the request. This is not appropriate and was a further delay for the resident. These delays ultimately caused a delay in the resident discovering that her items had been removed from the shed and would have contributed to a lack of effective investigation into the issue, due to the passage of time.
17. Following the resident’s formal complaint, the evidence shows that the landlord sought to understand what may have happened to the original shed lock and the resident’s items. While the Ombudsman understands that the passage of time has meant it was unable to conduct a thorough investigation, it was appropriate that the landlord sought to identify where the problem may have occurred.
18. Furthermore, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted that on the balance of probabilities, it was likely that an error in its communication or a mix up by the contractor in 2019 was the likely cause of the issue. While it is unfortunate that the resident had not noted the issue earlier than December 2021, it was reasonable given the available evidence of the landlord to accept that its mix up had in all likelihood resulted in the loss of items.
19. Throughout the complaint response, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that she had lost items, and the landlord recommended her to either claim on her insurance or via its own insurance team. It was appropriate that the landlord signpost the resident to its own internal insurance team and advise the resident on the process should she wish to make a claim. This was in line with its complaints policy which set out that it would not pay compensation where a claim was for loss of personal property or belongings and that residents should be directed to its own insurance team.
20. However, given its admission that it was probable that it had in some way caused the mix up to occur and the clear distress caused to the resident as a result of the loss of her items, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have recognised that and offered compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, to reflect its failings. Not doing so has meant an adverse finding in this case.
21. It is important to acknowledge, that once the landlord identified the mix up with the 2 pram sheds, it arranged for the neighbour to have the correct keys to ensure both residents could then make use of their respective pram sheds. The landlord’s swift response at this stage was reasonable and highlights its commitment to put things right.
22. While it cannot be determined exactly what occurred prior to the resident discovering the removal of her items from the shed, the other neighbour had clearly been given the incorrect shed key and was therefore using the wrong shed to store her items. This highlights that the landlord did not have an effective system in place to correctly show which shed belonged to which resident, which therefore ultimately caused this mix up to occur. Landlords need to ensure the information it stores and passes onto residents and its contractors is correct. Not doing so has caused in this case has caused distress to the resident.
23. In the first instance, the landlord delayed in changing the locks which resulted in the resident having to wait almost 9 months to discover that another neighbour had been using her shed. However, once the mistake was found the landlord undertook an investigation including talking to the staff that had been involved with the lock changes and attempted to piece together how the items had been removed. It also arranged for the neighbour to remove her items from the resident’s shed to ensure both had use of the correct shed. However, while the landlord apologised and accepted that it was probably at fault, it failed to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in losing her items.
24. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that the locks on her pram shed were changed and personal items removed.
25. A compensation order has been made for £250, made up of the following:
    1. £150 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
    2. £100 for the delay in changing the locks.

Complaint handling

26. The resident made a formal complaint on 13 October 2022; however, the landlord did not provide its response until 11 November 2022. While the landlord responded within its own policy timescales, its policy at the time was outside the guidance of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), in place at the same which set out that a landlord should respond in 10 working days.
27. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 February 2023. This was 57 days after the resident had requested escalation to stage 2 and outside of the landlord’s policy timescales which set out that it would respond within 25 working days. Furthermore, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that they communicated the delay to the resident. The Code sets out that where a landlord cannot provide the response within the published timescale, it should communicate that to the resident, with an expected response time given. Not doing so caused the resident a further delay in the resolution of her complaint.
28. However, it is important to note that the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay and recognised the uncertainty its delay had caused the resident. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
29. In its stage 2 response, the landlord undertook a thorough investigation of the issue and explored, as best it could given the passage the time, the history of the issue to ascertain what may have occurred. While this was reasonable, it would have been more appropriate for it to have done that at the earliest opportunity at stage 1. Instead, its stage 1 response was dismissive, and the landlord did not evidence that it had undertaken any investigation at all. Landlords need to ensure they investigate complaints fully at the earliest opportunity, doing so may have avoided the need for a further complaint response and would have been in line with the dispute resolution principles.
30. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling fell below the standard expected by the Ombudsman. Its stage 1 and 2 responses were delivered outside of the timescales as set out in the Code and it failed to conduct a thorough investigation at the earliest opportunity.
31. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
32. A compensation order has been made for £100, made up of the following:
    1. £50 for not conducting a proper investigation at stage 1.
    2. £50 for its delay at stage 2.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that the locks on her pram shed were changed and personal items removed.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

35. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £350, made up of the following:
    1. £250 for its failure in the handling of the pram shed lock.
    2. £100 for its complaint handling.
36. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.