Waltham Forest Council (202228943)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228943

Waltham Forest Council

31 May 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 the resident’s concerns about:
    1. Overcrowding and her housing application to move.
    2. Repairs to the property, including:
      1. Damp in the bathroom and the property being cold.
      2. Repairs to the lighting.
      3. Rats in the garden.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, her tenancy began on 30 March 2015. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat with a garden. The resident has cardiomyopathy and has had a defibrillator fitted. She lives in the property with her 4 children and 1 grandchild. Within her stage 1 complaint, the resident stated, her 5 year old daughter had been diagnosed with asthma.
  2. Evidence suggests the landlord attended in March 2022 to thermal board the bathroom and treat mould. An emergency repair was raised on 4 October 2022 as there was no power to the property. The landlord’s contractor noted the possibility of the wires in the ceiling being chewed by vermin. The electrical work was completed on 18 October 2022.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 17 October 2022. Within her complaint the resident said she was “severely overcrowded” and detailed the household living at the property, including their health conditions. The resident stated:
    1. she shared a bedroom with 2 children who witness her waking in the night experiencing breathlessness or chest pains.
    2. The flat was “very cold”.
    3. The bathroom was “extremely cold and damp” and in need of repair.
    4. She had been without lighting since 3 October 2022. She had contacted her housing advisor, team manager and surveyor but had no response.
    5. The garden was “infested with large rats” so she had to keep windows and doors closed which affected the ventilation of the flat.
    6. As a resolution she would like to be rehoused and the repairs completed in the interim.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 14 November 2022. Within its response the landlord confirmed the resident had been on the council housing register since 2017. It confirmed the household detailed on her housing application did not match who she had stated she currently lived with in her complaint. It advised the application had been medically assessed and banded accordingly. It said it would ask the repairs team to contact the resident about the “repairs issues”.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 November 2022 expressing her dissatisfaction with the contents of the stage 1 response regarding her housing application and the landlord had not acknowledged the effect her sharing a bedroom with her children was having.
  6. The landlord issued its final response on 17 January 2023. It apologised for the delay and advised this was due to a high caseload impacting on its ability to achieve published timescales. It summarised and responded to the resident’s complaint about her application to transfer and gave the escalation route to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
  7. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 23 March 2023.

Jurisdiction

  1. Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants living in unsanitary, overcrowded or otherwise unsatisfactory housing conditions; or the need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
  2. While the resident’s concerns and the nature of her complaint are noted, the Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications.
  3. Paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about overcrowding and her housing application is outside of our jurisdiction. The resident may wish to refer her concerns to the LGSCO accordingly.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. Evidence has been seen which suggests the living situation has impacted the household’s wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the authority of The Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between living conditions and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health, or her households, has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about repairs to the property.

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s Repairs Policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property, services and some fixtures and fittings. This includes the electrical wiring and bathroom. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time of the resident’s complaint states its contractor will aim to complete repairs “at the residents convenience” with a target of “14 days after the initial appointment”.

Damp in the bathroom and the property being cold.

  1. The resident made a formal complaint on 17 October 2022 where she stated the flat was cold and the bathroom needed repairs, with particular reference to the bath panel. The landlord treated the resident’s comments within this complaint about the repairs to the property and her bathroom being damp and in need of repair as a service request and did not respond to this as part of the formal complaint. The landlords repair records show on 28 March 2022 a works order was raised to renew the bath panel “acrylic side”, a further works order for the same job was raised on 20 July 2022. On 13 September 2022, a works order was raised as the bath had “pulled away” from the wall and a repair was possibly needed to the sealant. In February 2023 a very similar repair works order was raised.
  2. No evidence has been seen to show what works were completed following these works orders being raised or when the jobs were completed, resulting in the landlord being unable to demonstrate that it fulfilled its repair obligations. Additionally, the repair records indicate ongoing repairs to the bathroom and therefore the resident’s comments in her email of complaint on 17 October 2022 should not have been taken as a service request.
  3. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 amended the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, with the aim of ensuring that all rented accommodation is fit for human habitation. It required landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. Section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act states that when considering whether a property is fit for human habitation, regard should be given to various matters including repair and freedom from damp.
  4. An internal email from the landlord dated 14 November 2002 suggested a surveyor would attend the property to inspect the damp, following the resident’s comments being passed onto the repair team. Upon request, the landlord has advised a surveyor attended the property on 16 November 2022, but it could not locate any report from this inspection and no jobs were raised around this time. It is also not recorded on the repair log it provided for this investigation. This is a clear record keeping issue.

Repairs to the lighting.

  1. The landlord also treated the resident’s comments about not having lighting in her property for 15 days as a service request rather than a complaint which was not appropriate. Although since providing information for this investigation, the landlord has acknowledged it should have considered this as part of the complaint which will be mentioned further later in this report.
  2. The landlords repair records show a works order was raised on 4 October 2022, no evidence has been seen to show what works were completed following this being raised or when the job was completed. The landlord has advised however, in providing evidence for this investigation that it attended on 4 October 2022 and found the circuit to be “tripping”. It subsequently attended the next day, with notes stating the lighting circuit needed to be rewired. It then advised remedial works to be completed on 18 October 2022. This timeframe is within the timeframe of its repairs policy however the landlord’s records do not state whether the resident was left with adequate lighting or what advice was given throughout this period which is not appropriate.
  3. Moreover, the residents timeline of events differ from that of the landlord, in an email to the landlord on 10 November 2022, the resident confirmed that the lights were restored on 19 October 2022, she was given 1 plug in lamp and her request for a battery operated light for the bathroom was ignored. Within this email the resident also detailed the impact not having light for 16 days had on her and her family. The landlord “noted” the resident’s comments when it responded and asked if the property had been rewired. Although the Ombudsman is unable to form a view as to which party’s account is most accurate, nor is it able to offer a diagnosis of the issue, it is expected the landlord to keep robust, detailed and accurate records. The landlord was not able to identify if the property had a rewire from its records, it was not appropriate to ask the resident to provide this information. Nor was it appropriate to not provide a response to the resident’s comments about being “ignored”. This would have caused the resident further frustration in her interaction with the landlord and was avoidable and unnecessary.

Rats in the garden.

  1. Again, the landlord treated the resident’s comments about rats in the garden as a service request, not a complaint. No evidence has been seen that it responded to the resident in anyway on this issue until a works order was raised on 12 April 2023 to repair a broken gully which could have been allowing rats to enter the property. This was some 6 months after the residents first complaint, which is not appropriate. Upon request, the landlord has advised the Ombudsman that pest control attended to property on 16 January 2023 to lay bait and then found no signs of vermin on a follow up visit on 13 February 2023.
  2. The lack of records relating to the resident’s interactions with the landlord and its actions in response is concerning and a considerable failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
  3. In summary, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had fulfilled its repair obligations and acted appropriately in responding to the residents reports of damp in her bathroom. It failed to acknowledge the issue of rats reported by the resident, which she highlighted to not be helping with her being able to ventilate the property. The landlord also failed to evidence that it provided the relevant level of service when the resident reported no lighting for a number of days, moreover, due to its poor records, asked her to confirm whether the property had been rewired. Taking the above into consideration, alongside the poor record keeping evident in this investigation, a finding of maladministration has been made.
  4. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report recommends that landlords “should consider their current approach to records keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust”. Having considered the poor record keeping in this case, an order has been made at the end of this report for it to carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The Ombudsman has considered how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint as it failed to deal with all of the points raised by the resident within its formal process.
  2. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code at the time of the resident’s complaint stated landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. A service request is a request from a resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. Service requests should be recorded, monitored and reviewed regularly. A complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request.
  3. The landlord treated the resident’s comments about repairs to her property as a service request, not as a complaint. Its stage 1 response did not fully answer some of the issues raised by the resident and simply stated the repairs team had been asked to contact the resident about the repairs. As such there was no acknowledgement of these issues, no decision on the complaint, and no details of how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied. This is ultimately a service failure.
  4. The landlord did not acknowledge this failure in its stage 2 response but did acknowledge the resident’s comments about lighting should have been a complaint, when providing information for this investigation. Had the complaint been investigated fully it could have allowed for the landlord to resolve the issue, offered further advice about alternative housing options, for example mutual exchange, considered if the property factors merited a possible management transfer, and would have made the resident feel as if she had been listened to and her complaint taken seriously.
  5. The decision to not include the issues regarding repairs under its complaints procedure seems to have been made solely by the team who responded to the complaint, as they did not deal with repairs and the resident’s main issue was her request to transfer and her housing application. Although it is noted that the landlord, a local authority has many different functions and ultimately many different complaint service level agreements to meet, it is still expected to work in a collaborative manner in responding to complaints. In instances such as this, the landlord is expected to have an understanding of issues effecting its residents and where different escalation routes may apply, it should be clearly explained to the resident how the complaint will be handled and how individual elements of complaint should be escalated to the appropriate ombudsman service.
  6. The landlord’s guidance for responding to complaints says when matters of jurisdiction are not clear, it can seek guidance from either of the ombudsmen services to ensure as much as possible that the complainant is sign-posted to the correct service. No evidence has been seen to show the landlord did this and it signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman in its final complaint response despite its final response being focussed on the residents housing application. As detailed above, part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England including housing registers. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. Therefore, the landlord should have provided the correct route for the escalation of the resident’s complaint about her rehousing application, this has resulted in an avoidable delay and potential rejection to the residents complaint by the LGSCO for time factors.
  7. Further, the landlord has not demonstrated how it has ‘learned from outcomes’ from its failings and/or how it will improve its services in the future. It is good practice, and in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, for landlords to communicate how services to residents will be improved in complaint responses so that the resident is reassured and landlords learn from their mistakes. As the landlord failed to investigate and the complaint not being fully responded to, a relevant order has been made to ensure the landlord responds to complaints which cover different council statutory functions in a more cohesive and collaborative way in the future.
  8. In addition to the above, the landlord’s final complaint response was delayed. It responded 43 working days after the resident requested her complaint be escalated, 23 days outside of its policy. Although it did apologise for the delay and advised it was due to a high caseload, it did not say how it would ensure future delays due to a high caseload would be minimalised, if not eradicated.
  9. Taking all the above into consideration results in a finding of maladministration for how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint in respect of the landlord’s response to the residents concerns of overcrowding and her housing application to move is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of repair to the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within the next 6 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a senior officer at director level or above to apologise to the resident.
    2. Pay the resident £400 for its failures identified in how it handled the residents reports of repair.
    3. Pay the resident £300 for its failures identified in how it handled the resident’s complaint.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 6 weeks of this determination.
  3. Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must initiate and complete a management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with the Ombudsman outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
    1. Its intention and a timescale to review its complaint procedures, with particular focus on:
      1. Complaints which cover multiple departments, ensuring an effective collaborative approach.
      2. Clear, correct advice on escalation routes being made available.
      3. Efficient management of caseloads to ensure minimal impact on services and delivery of local resolution.
    2. Its intention and a timescale to review its record keeping processes, staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors. This should incorporate, if it has not done so already, the completion of a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023).
  4. The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 12 weeks of this determination.