Waltham Forest Council (202337536)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337536

Waltham Forest Council

17 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A problem with the resident’s kitchen sink.
2. The resident’s reports of dissatisfaction with the standard of communal caretaking.
3. Repairs to a communal door lock.
4. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
5. A home loss and disturbance payment.
The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s complaint.
2. Its knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The tenancy started in February 2022 and the resident moved into this property due to regeneration of her previous property by the landlord.
On 5 June 2022 the resident told the landlord she was experiencing noise nuisance and ASB from some of her neighbours. On 13 June 2022 she said matters had worsened as a neighbour had a party and the lock on a communal door had been removed.
On 27 June 2022 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about issues with communal cleaning. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 22 July 2022, in which it said that block inspections had been completed to a satisfactory standard. The resident asked the landlord to escalate this complaint on 1 August 2022.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 5 August 2022 in response to a separate complaint about an alleged breach of confidentiality during its ASB investigation. It said that it had attended the block to interview neighbours with the police in attendance, and that no door numbers or names were given.
On 5 September 2022 the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the complaint about issues with communal cleaning. It said that the floor in the bin store was cleaned on a weekly basis and that any inspection could only assess the situation at that given moment. It explained that it had limited resources and the presence of litter/fluid was not necessarily a failing on its part. This letter explained that if the resident remained unhappy, she could refer the complaint to this Service.
On 5 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint about its repair contractor’s handling of a repair to her kitchen sink. On 26 October 2022 she contacted the landlord to again raise the issues of communal cleaning standards and other residents’ use of the bin store.
On 1 November 2022 the landlord sent a stage 2 response in relation to the resident’s email of 26 October 2022. It said that it had already issued a response on 5 September 2022 and that if she remained unhappy she should contact this Service, as it would not reinvestigate the same issues.
On 11 November 2022 the landlord sent a stage 1 response about the resident’s complaint about the contractor’s handling of a repair to her kitchen sink. It apologised for a delay in its response, but said there was no error made by its contractor and no defect was found when it visited.
On 21 November 2022 the landlord sent a further stage 1 response to complaints about the communal door lock, the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s concerns about ASB, and the processing of a home loss/disturbance payment. The landlord’s records do not clearly show when the resident asked for this complaint to be raised. In this response the landlord said:
1. It had received a report that the door lock had been repaired on 25 May 2022, but this turned out to be incorrect. A new lock was now available and would be fitted soon. As the issue was limited to a secondary door, and the main exit and entrance doors were secure, there was no risk from this delay. It apologised for the miscommunication and delayed repair.
2. It also apologised for its delayed response about the resident’s report of ASB, which was an oversight by a member of staff. A new tenancy officer had contacted her on 15 November 2022 to introduce themselves, and all ASB should be reported to them directly or online.
3. It had agreed to pay some of the home loss/disturbance payment in advance. However, the final entitlement was put on hold due to an invoice for costs related to the move. It apologised for not collecting a form the resident had left at the local library, but said that it had been unable to make payment as she had blanked out the payment details.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 December 2022 and asked it to escalate this complaint to stage 2. The landlord met with her at the local library on 6 January 2023 to discuss the complaint. At this meeting she provided more details about her concerns about noise and ASB. On 14 June 2023 she asked the landlord to raise a further complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB.
The resident continued to report issues with ASB and noise during 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to her complaint on 19 October 2023, in which it said:
1. It apologised for the delay in sending its stage 2 response and for grammatical errors in its stage 1 response.
2. It reiterated its stage 1 position that the delay to repairing the communal door lock had not compromised the security of the building.
3. It also reiterated its stage 1 position in relation to its delayed response to reporting of ASB.
4. It said that, as of 16 February 2023, it had not received bank details from the resident in order to make the home loss/disturbance payment.
5. It offered £475 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £150 for delays in repairing the communal door lock.
  2. £50 for the delay in responding to ASB correspondence.
  3. £25 for the delay in responding at stage 1.
  4. £250 for the delay in responding at stage 2.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. On 22 January 2024 she asked this Service to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
According to paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about a problem with her kitchen sink on 11 November 2022. This Service has seen no evidence that the resident asked the landlord for this complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process.
For the above reason and in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the kitchen sink issue falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If the resident would like to bring this issue to this Service for investigation, she should pursue it fully through the landlord’s process first. It should be noted, however, that due to the passage of time since it sent its stage 1 response, the landlord may not accept an escalation request for this issue.
According to paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
The resident raised the complaint about the standard of communal cleaning on 27 June 2022. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 22 July 2022, and its stage 2 response on 5 September 2022. The resident did not contact this Service to ask us to investigate until 22 January 2024, which was more than 12 months after the landlord’s complaints procedure was completed. For this reason, and in line with paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme, the communal cleaning issue falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Scope of the investigation

The resident first raised a complaint relating to ASB on 27 June 2022, which the landlord responded to on 5 August 2022. This complaint was about the landlord’s alleged breach of her confidentiality when conducting an investigation into a report of ASB by a neighbour. This Service has seen no evidence that the resident asked for this complaint to be escalated.
For the reasons already explained above, this particular ASB issue will not be investigated as it has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB after 5 August 2022.
During her contact with the landlord, the resident often referred to the issues with communal cleaning as ASB. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord treated, or should have treated, these reports as ASB, and it has considered these as a cleaning issue. As explained above, the communal cleaning issue is outside of this Service’s jurisdiction, so these reports will not be investigated.
The resident has raised a further complaint with the landlord and this Service, under our reference 202426037. This complaint relates to ASB incidents reported by the resident from May 2024 onwards and will be investigated separately, should the resident remain unhappy after she has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB prior to May 2024.

Communal door lock

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it is responsible for maintaining and repairing communal doors. It has the following classifications and timescales for repairs:
1. Emergency repairs – within 2, 4, or 24 hours, depending on the issue.
2. Routine repairs – within 24 hours or next working day, or 3 days, depending on the issue.
3. Urgent – within 5 calendar days.
4. Routine – within 21 calendar days.
5. 45-day.
An issue with an internal communal door lock was reported to the landlord on 20 April 2022. The landlord received an email on 25 May 2022 saying that the lock had been repaired. Further damage to the door was reported on 13 June 2022, when it was reported that the entire lock had been removed.
In its stage 1 response of 21 November 2022 the landlord acknowledged that the lock had still not been repaired. It said that a new lock was now available and would be fitted soon. It explained that the damage had been done by a resident and there had been no break-in by an external party. It said that the main entry and exit doors had remained secure so there was no risk to safety.
The landlord’s repair records show that a contractor attended to fit the new lock on 30 November 2022. However, the same day it was reported that it was faulty. The contractor reattended that day and removed the lock. The landlord’s repairs records do not show when, or if, the lock was subsequently fixed.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 19 October 2023 apologised for delays, but reiterated that there was no security issue and offered £150 compensation for the delay. This response did not confirm that the lock had been repaired. However there were no further reports of issues from the resident and the landlord did not state there were outstanding actions. On balance, it is more likely than not that by the time the stage 2 response was issued, the door had been repaired.
It is not clear from the landlord’s records which of the repair classifications it considered the repair under, as its stage 2 response said that it should have been completed within 14 days, which does not match any of its repair timescales. However, regardless of the repair classification, it is evident that the landlord failed to carry out the repair in line with any of its policy timescales.
When there are acknowledged 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 issue satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress – which included an apology and an offer of compensation – was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
While there were delays in the landlord repairing the communal door lock, it has acknowledged this in its complaint responses. The Ombudsman is of the view that the compensation offered by the landlord for this issue was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused. The redress was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and was therefore reasonable.
Taking all matters into account, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door lock.

The resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it takes a victim–centred approach. It says its support for victims and witnesses includes:
1. Making it easy for residents to report ASB.
2. Assessing the risk of harm from ASB.
3. Agreeing regular communication and updates about the progress of a case.
4. Managing cases proactively using all options open to it.
On 24 September 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that she was experiencing regular noise nuisance from 3 neighbours. On 26 September 2022 the landlord wrote to a neighbour to take some action in line with its ASB policy. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident or took any action in relation to the noise complaint at this time, which was not appropriate.
On 24 October 2022 the resident sent the landlord a follow-up email, saying that she was still experiencing ASB but had received no response from it. She said she had tried to call her tenancy officer but they did not answer the phone. She asked to raise a complaint. The landlord’s ASB policy says that when opening an ASB case it will carry out a risk assessment and agree a re-contact plan and action plan with the resident. There is no evidence that it took these steps, which may have contributed to issues being missed and not followed up on.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 1 November 2022, in which it said that it had already dealt with a similar complaint on 5 September 2022, and that if the resident remained unhappy she should approach this Service. However, this complaint was about communal cleaning and other residents’ use of the bin stores. It did not relate to noise nuisance, so it was not appropriate for the landlord to decline to investigate the new issue she had raised.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 21 November 2022, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to contact the resident within an appropriate timescale about her reports of ASB. It said this was an oversight which had been escalated to the appropriate manager for feedback to be provided. The landlord gave her the contact details for her new tenancy officer and asked that she report any ASB to them or online. It did not propose any actions in relation to the noise nuisance the resident had already reported, which was not appropriate. On 2 December 2022 the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated.
The landlord met with the resident on 6 January 2023 to discuss her ongoing concerns. It followed up this meeting with a letter on 12 January 2023, in which it confirmed:
1. The resident had told the landlord that noise from flats above sounded like someone jumping around and children running around. She also made a report about another neighbour whom she had overheard having conversations about violence.
2. The landlord met with all residents involved on 23 December 2022. One upstairs neighbour said they were elderly with no children, and always removed their shoes when entering the property.
3. The other upstairs neighbour said that their children were all teenagers who spent a lot of time studying, and did not jump around.
4. The other neighbour denied any knowledge of any incidents involving anyone from their household, including verbal altercations.
5. The landlord had advised the resident to download a noise app, but she was reluctant to do so. It explained that it could not take any action without evidence.
6. It would write a letter to all residents of the block.
Meeting with all residents involved was a reasonable step for the landlord to take. However, this was done 3 months after the resident reported the noise nuisance, which was an unreasonable delay. As the neighbours’ reports differed from the resident’s, it was fair for the landlord to ask the resident to try to obtain evidence before it would take any action. However, this Service has seen no evidence that a block letter was issued, which was not appropriate. It is important that the landlord follows through with commitments it makes, which it failed to do.
On 9 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report breaches of tenancies. The landlord acknowledged her report the same day and asked her to provide more specific details about behavioural issues she was concerned about. The resident did not provide any further information at that time. She contacted the landlord on 22 May 2023 to again report tenancy breaches. The landlord responded the same day to say it would speak to the neighbour in question.
On 12 June 2023 the resident asked for a complaint to be raised about the landlord’s handling of her reports of tenancy breaches. On 23 June 2023 she emailed the landlord to say that a neighbour was storing vehicles in a communal area, in contravention of the tenancy agreement. The landlord responded on 29 June 2023 to say it had visited the neighbour. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord took proportionate action at this time.
On 26 September 2023 the resident told the landlord she had not received a reply to an email of 11 August 2023 about illegal smoking on the premises. This Service has not seen a copy of her email. The landlord asked her for more details about the neighbour, but the resident declined to give these, saying the photos she had provided should be enough. The landlord said it would deal with the matter. However, it is not clear what, if any, action it took.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 October 2023 to say that she was struggling to sleep due to the noise from the downstairs neighbour. She said she had audio recordings and would contact the police if it continued. The landlord responded to say that her tenancy officer had changed and would be in contact soon. From the evidence provided, it seems this was the first time the landlord had notified her of this staffing change. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have notified her of this in advance, rather than in response to her ASB report.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 19 October 2023, in which it said it had actively engaged with her about her ASB concerns. It offered £50 compensation for its delays in acknowledging her first reports of ASB in September 2022.
On 3 November 2023 the landlord took further incremental action in relation to the neighbour. Following an inspection of the block on 16 January 2024, it again took incremental action. These actions demonstrated that the landlord was monitoring the ASB issue and taking action to try to resolve matters in line with its policy. However, no evidence has been provided that it kept the resident updated with its actions, which was not appropriate.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It did acknowledge a delay in responding to her reports in September 2022, and offered £50 for this delay. It has also demonstrated that it took appropriate action towards the neighbour, in line with its policy.
However, the landlord was not proactive in its communication with the resident, nor did it keep to all its commitments, such as sending out a block letter. It failed to carry out a risk assessment or agree re-contact and action plans upon opening the case. So, it failed to take steps required in its policy to support the resident.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £350 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to keep her appropriately updated. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £400.

Home loss and disturbance payment

The resident previously lived in another of the landlord’s properties which was regenerated and all residents were compelled to move. As a result of this, the resident was offered home loss and disturbance payments.
The resident’s new tenancy began on 28 February 2022. However, she was unhappy with the move and did not move into the property until May 2022. The landlord has provided this Service with limited information and evidence relating to these payments, which has been addressed below under knowledge and information management.
The resident has provided this Service with a copy of a displacement payment form which she completed on 28 April 2022. She says she received an initial payment of £2,000 on 6 May 2022, and that she was due to receive the remaining balance approximately 6 weeks from the date she moved into the property.
In an email of 28 October 2022, the resident said the landlord had contacted her on 27 July 2022 about the balance of the home loss payment. However, she said this was outside a 6–week window she had been advised of for processing this payment. She said she asked the landlord on 9 August 2022 to post any forms that needed to be completed and she left these at the local library on 27 September 2022 as agreed with the landlord.
On 27 October 2022 the resident said she had not received a payment, so visited the library and was told the forms had not been collected. The landlord said in its stage 1 response of 21 November 2022 that she had also emailed it a copy of the form so it did not think it needed to collect the hard copy. The landlord said that her bank details were blanked out on the forms so it was unable to make a payment. It asked her to provide these details in order for it to make payment.
The landlord has not provided this Service with any copies of the form to demonstrate that the resident failed to provide her bank details. However, the resident has provided a copy of this form, completed on 25 September 2022, which included her bank details. Regardless of whether she completed these details at that time, the resident had already received a partial payment, and therefore the landlord had already received and verified her bank details. It therefore did not act appropriately in further delaying this payment.
In its stage 2 response of 19 October 2023, the landlord reiterated its stage 1 response and did not identify any failings in its handling of the payment. It said that, as of 16 February 2023, the resident had not provided bank details. The resident has confirmed to this Service that she did eventually receive the payment, but the date this was received has not been confirmed. The landlord has not provided any records to show when this payment was made.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a home loss and disturbance payment. The landlord said that it was unable to make the payment as it had not received the resident’s bank details, but has not provided any evidence to support this. Meanwhile, the resident has provided copies of forms which contained her bank details. So, based on the available evidence, there was no reasonable explanation for the landlord delaying the payment.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400 – this comprises £200 to recognise the delays, and £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaints process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaints process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes, and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will log and acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 48 hours and will respond in writing within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. At stage 2 it will acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days and respond in writing within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The resident raised the issues in her most recent complaint in different emails between 24 and 28 October 2022. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged it had logged these issues as a complaint. It sent its stage 1 response on 21 November 2022, which was more than a week over its policy timescale. At this time it did not acknowledge this delay or offer any compensation.
On 2 December 2022 the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated. The landlord did not send its stage 2 response until 19 October 2023, which represented an unreasonable delay. While the landlord did apologise for the delay in its stage 2 letter, it did not provide any explanation for it taking 10 months to respond. This Service has also seen no evidence that it provided any updates to the resident during this period.
The resident has raised dissatisfaction with grammatical errors in the landlord’s responses. While it is important that the landlord communicates clearly with residents, the Ombudsman also appreciates that the landlord has its own style of writing that may not be the same as the resident’s preferred style. The Ombudsman is of the view that any grammatical errors did not have an impact on the readability of the landlord’s letters, and so did not put the resident at a disadvantage.
The Ombudsman has considered if the unreasonable delay and failure to provide an explanation amounts to severe maladministration. This delay prevented the resident from escalating her complaint to the Ombudsman sooner and caused some additional distress at what was already a very stressful time. However, taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman considers that this amounts to maladministration. This is because the landlord has acknowledged these failings and made some attempts to put things right, by offering an apology and £250 compensation for the stage 2 delay, as well as £25 for the delay at stage 1. There was also no permanent impact on the resident, as the complaint was, eventually, responded to.
While it is positive that the landlord acknowledged the failings and offered compensation, the Ombudsman does not consider this compensation to have fully recognised the impact caused. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident additional compensation of £200. This appropriately recognises the long delay, while also factoring in the mitigating circumstances. This brings the total compensation for the complaint handling failures to £475.
During the investigation of other complaints, the landlord has made us aware that during the period being investigated it was having some staffing issues which led to a backlog of complaints. It has told us that it carried out recruitment and training to address this. Therefore, no additional orders have been made in relation to this.

Knowledge and information management

Effective knowledge and information management plays a vital role in a landlord’s ability to manage both repairs and complaints effectively.
As explained above, the landlord has failed to provide this Service with full records of the repairs to the communal door lock. It is likely that its failure to keep complete records in relation to this repair contributed to the delays in getting it resolved.
The landlord has also failed to provide this Service with copies of the displacement payment forms it received. Had it kept complete records of these forms, it should have been able to make the payment to the resident within a reasonable timescale.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its knowledge and information management, as it failed to keep complete records and update the resident’s records where appropriate.
An order has been made for the landlord to self-assess using the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of a problem with the resident’s kitchen sink is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of dissatisfaction with the standard of communal caretaking is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs to the communal door lock.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. A home loss and disturbance payment.
3. The resident’s complaint.
4. Its knowledge and information management.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £1,275, less any amount it has already paid, broken down as follows:
1. £400 for its handling of ASB.
2. £400 for its handling of the home loss and disturbance payment.
3. £475 for complaint handling.
A senior manager at the landlord is to issue the resident with a written apology.
The landlord to provide evidence to this Service of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, the landlord to self-assess using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management. The landlord should produce a report setting out the findings and learnings from the review, and provide a copy of this to this Service within 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation as offered in its stage 2 response for the communal door lock, if this has not already been paid.