Waltham Forest Council (202232186)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232186

Waltham Forest Council

26 March 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s request for information about its bathroom and kitchen refurbishment programme.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord who is a local authority. The property is a 3 bedroom terraced house. The secure tenancy started in January 1994. The landlord is aware that the resident is a carer and has her own health conditions that affect her joints and mobility.
On 3 occasions between 11 August 2021 to 9 September 2021 the landlord’s appointed contractor wrote to the resident. Based on age and condition of her bathroom and kitchen, the landlord had considered her eligible for its planned refurbishment programme. The resident was asked to make contact to arrange a convenient time for a survey. It was recorded that attempts to arrange access to the property were unsuccessful.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 October 2021 and 22 November 2021. She said there was current disrepair litigation in respect of the kitchen and bathroom. She asked the landlord “whether it had instructed the contractor to undertake the works and set out the reasons in the clearest terms for doing so.”
The landlord issued duplicate responses on 21 December 2021 and 24 March 2022. It confirmed that the contractor writing to her had been appointed and reiterated the planned refurbishment works for the property. The landlord closed the matter twice at stage 1 of its complaint process as service requests.
On 2 February 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses. She escalated her complaint on 4 April 2022.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 22 May 2022. It apologised for delayed responses and errors with its stage 1 complaint handling. It said it partially upheld the resident’s complaint.
On 24 March 2023 the resident wrote to the Ombudsman. She considered the landlord’s stage 2 response to be “misleading and disingenuous.” She considered its response implied that she had not allowed access to the property. She said that this was untrue and considered “an apology simply not enough and compensation must be offered.”
The resident complaint became one we could formerly consider on 1 September 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Between 2010 to 2020 there is evidence the resident issued 5 legal proceedings against the landlord. She claimed that it had failed to keep the property in repair which included claims of disrepair to the bathroom. Within these claims, cost orders were made in court both for and against the landlord. There is evidence that at the time of the resident’s complaint at least 1 claim and/or appeal remained ongoing.
A disrepair claim is a legal process which is separate from the landlord’s handling of a service request or its complaints process. Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service to the courts, the resident’s complaint concern matters that were subject to court proceedings, and judgements made in court. Therefore we have only considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for information and not matters that are being addressed by the courts.

Handling of the resident’s request for information about its bathroom and kitchen refurbishment programme

The specific details of each of the resident’s legal claims against the landlord are unclear and date back many years. However it is evident that bathroom related repairs had been part of these proceedings. While we are unable to determine matters where there are or have been court judgements, it is evident that the resident asked the landlord whether the planned refurbishment works were part of an outstanding disrepair claim.
It is therefore our observation that the resident’s letters that started from 25 October 2021 sought to clarify the following:
1. Was the contractor writing to her appointed by the landlord.
2. What was the reason for it writing to her.
It was reasonable for the resident to ask these questions. Having been involved in various legal proceedings the resident sought to understand if the works were part of her claims or separate planned works. Furthermore, it was reasonable for the resident to want to be sure that the contractor was legitimately approaching her.
There is no evidence that the landlord received or responded to the resident’s letter of 25 October 2021. Therefore the resident felt it necessary to write for a second time on 22 November 2021. This was sent recorded delivery and marked as received on 26 November 2022.
While it is unclear why the resident was either unable or chose not to use other forms of quicker communication, the second letter required further time and effort for her to gain a response from the landlord.
The landlord issued a response on 21 December 2021. This was 17 working days after the letter had been marked as received. It apologised for its delayed reply and advised the resident she had addressed a batch of letters to the town hall. This was not the address for the team she was attempting to contact. It asked her to address letters to a specific address which it gave her. Its reply confirmed that her kitchen and bathroom came under its 2021 to 2022 planned refurbishment works. This reply was entitled stage 1 response and the complaint closed as a service request.
While the landlord’s policies are silent on the timeframes a resident can expect a response to a service request, its explanation for its delay was reasonable. It identified that the resident was using the incorrect address for the team and provided this information for her future use.
Although the landlord made efforts to reassure the resident that it had appointed a contractor for its planned refurbishment programme, it failed to answer the resident’s specific question whether work was linked to ongoing litigation. This resulted in the resident writing for a third time. Therefore, further time and effort was used to gain the response she had asked for.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged and apologised for further delays sending timely responses. It had identified failings by its post room. It explained that letters received had not been correctly scanned or distributed to the correct departments in a timely manner. It had raised this with the appropriate team leader and all post room staff reminded of the importance of this. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances. It demonstrated the landlord learning from outcomes and taking steps to prevent similar occurrences happening again.
Within the stage 2 response the landlord advised that the litigation process was separate from its efforts to undertake planned refurbishment works to the property. It therefore answered the resident’s specific question. However, it considered its contractor had made reasonable but unsuccessful attempts to arrange appointments. Therefore it reminded the resident of her tenancy obligation to allow access to undertake repair or improvement works.
While this would ordinarily be a reasonable step for the landlord to take, the resident says she contacted the contractor on 5 occasions between 19 August 2021 to 15 September 2021. She explained that as a carer of a shielding person she had explained to the contractor for the need to minimise the number of people in the property. This was a reasonable request. However, she says the contractor failed to return her calls.
It is unclear from the evidence how or why the communication between the parties broke down. However, there is evidence that the resident agreed to an appointment for 6 October 2021 but subsequently cancelled it.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail. They also enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
In this case, while the landlord’s stage 2 response is comprehensive, there were gaps in the information available to it. The gaps in record keeping regarding the resident’s efforts to co-ordinate an appointment have not been considered. This resulted in the landlord reminding her of her tenancy obligations rather than offering a solution to resolve a potential communication breakdown. The resident considered this response to be misleading and caused upset. As such she has used more time and effort to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
Considering the above, the resident was required to write to the landlord 3 times over a period of 4 months for her specific question to be answered. While in this time the landlord took steps to reassure her that its contractor was legitimate, it failed to provide her with the answer she requested. This was only clearly set out when it sent its stage 2 response in May 2022. Therefore the resident had waited almost 7 months. While it is unclear why the resident did not telephone or email the landlord in this time, it was not reasonable that she had to use time and effort to repeat her request.
Therefore we find service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about its bathroom and kitchen refurbishment programme. Despite the resident’s repeated attempts for information, the landlord failed to provide what it was being asked for. The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised and answered the resident’s question. While this response went some way to put things right, it failed to offer redress to recognise the time and effort taken by the resident to achieve this.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states 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.
The resident’s letter dated 25 October 2021 asks the landlord for information. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered this a service request. However, there is no evidence that this was received or acknowledged by the landlord.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the landlord, its services or its staff, where a response or resolution is explicitly or implicitly expected.
The resident wrote a second letter on 22 November 2021, asking the landlord for the same information and why it had failed to respond. This was a clear expression of dissatisfaction and presented the landlord with an opportunity to put things right. It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to treat this as an expression of dissatisfaction as outlined in its complaint policy and the Code.
The landlord had an opportunity to react to her second letter and offer to investigate and take steps to prevent a similar failure from happening again. Its failure to do so required the resident to use more time and effort to raise her questions as a complaint on 18 February 2022.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that a “complainant must be advised of their right to proceed to the next stage of the complaint procedure if they are dissatisfied with the outcome to the stage 1 complaint.” As the landlord had failed to address the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction in line with its policy, she was not given this right. This was not appropriate.
It is therefore appropriate the landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that an opportunity had been missed. It recognised it had failed to address the resident’s second request for information as an expression of dissatisfaction. It recognised that officers handling her enquiries had failed to correctly follow its complaint procedures. It apologised for the error and recognised the resident had not been given information regarding her rights to escalate her complaint.
The landlord’s published corporate complaints procedure set out the expectations for handling complaints at stage 1 and stage 2. The policy says complaints should be responded to within 20 working days at stage 1 and 25 working days at stage 2. The landlord’s policy at the time recognised that its timescales for issuing complaint responses did not align with the Code. However the corporate complaints process for local authority landlord’s was accepted by the Ombudsman at that time.
The resident escalated her complaint in writing dated 4 April 2022. This was marked as received by the landlord on 8 April 2022. However, the landlord apologised that identified issues with its post room meant her letter had not reached the complaints team until 25 April 2022. As a result, the landlord’s response exceeded its stage 2 response timeframe by 4 working days.
While its response was outside of its policy the landlord apologised and demonstrated learning by speaking to its post room staff. We consider these steps reasonable in the circumstances and the detriment of this delay to have been minimal.
In this case, the landlord attempted to demonstrate learning by speaking to the officers involved at stage 1. However it identified that the members of staff had since left the organisation. It reassured the resident that its post room staff had received a reminder of the importance of the distributing post in a timely manner to the appropriate departments. This was a reasonable step to prevent future delays.
The landlord has accepted that it did not properly investigate the complaint at stage 1 of the complaint process. The landlord explained that the complaint was incorrectly responded to as a service request and no investigation into the elements raised by the resident took place. This resulted in a delay in answering the resident’s question. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord recognised these failures, apologised, and took steps to address the identified failures.
While the landlord acknowledged its failures, it did not offer redress to recognise the time and effort taken for the resident’s complaint to be correctly addressed. In this instance, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation to proportionately reflect the errors in its complaint handling. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to us when the actions to put things right were not quite proportionate to the identified failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about its bathroom and kitchen refurbishment programme.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident £100 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £50 for the resident’s time and effort taken due to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about its bathroom and kitchen refurbishment programme.
  2. £50 for the resident’s time and effort due to the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to review its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers are familiar with the difference between a service request and a complaint.
The landlord is ordered to review its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers respond and deal with complaints in accordance with its complaints procedure.

Recommendations

The landlord is encouraged to review its complaint response times to ensure that they align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024. This is the first statutory Complaint Handling Code and it will take effect from 1 April 2024. The landlord may benefit from the free resources available via the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning. This is available on our website.
The landlord is encouraged to review the Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM). It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future record keeping practices to aid service delivery.