London Borough of Waltham Forest (202330491)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat, and is a wheelchair user. In 2021, we investigated a case for the resident and recommended that the landlord consider updating its repair policy to offer quicker response times for disabled residents, based on the impact of delays. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to this recommendation. He also has an intercom system to allow access to his flat, and was dissatisfied with how the landlord’s contractor handled a repair.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries concerning a review of its repairs policy.
3. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. an intercom repair
   2. the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s queries concerning a review of its repairs policy
   2. reasonable redress in its complaint handling
   3. service failure in its handling of the intercom repair.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Review of repairs policy

5. The landlord recognised its failings and offered suitable redress to put things right.

The intercom repair

6. The landlord failed to follow its repairs policy and communicate the repairs appointment for the intercom.

The complaint

7. The landlord recognised its failing and offered suitable redress.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we will not investigate

8. The resident said the landlord did not carefully consider the needs of disabled residents. Under Section 114(1) of the Equality Act 2010, only a county court can decide whether discrimination or other unlawful conduct has taken place. This means we cannot make a legally binding decision on whether discrimination occurred. However, we can consider whether the landlord acted fairly and responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns.

What we can investigate

9. In 2021, we investigated case 202110675 for the resident. We recommended “the landlord to consider updating its repair policy to offer quicker response times for disabled residents by assessing the potential impact on the individual of enduring delayed repairs. “Our recommendations are not binding. We do not monitor compliance with them. A landlord can decide if it wants to take the steps we have recommended.
10. We understand the landlord told the resident it had accepted the recommendation and that a review would begin within a year. When the resident, 12 months later, received the FOI response confirming that no review had taken place, it was understandable he felt disappointed. The landlord had raised the resident’s expectations, and its admission it had made no progress undermined the resident’s trust.
11. When the resident expressed dissatisfaction and made the complaint as shown above, the landlord provided its stage 1 response.
12. The landlord provided a detailed response explaining how its current approach applied flexibility to meet residents’ repair needs. This thorough response demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns into account and was committed to showing it understood, and took its responsibilities around reasonable adjustments seriously.
13. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the resident’s disappointment at the response from the FOI, and the lack of progress towards reviewing the repairs policy in a systematic way. This showed it recognised the frustration caused by the lack of information it provided to the resident.
14. The landlord did not dismiss the recommendation but explained that it had taken steps within its processes to provide interim practices before it implemented awider business transformation project. It confirmed the transformation project would include changes to its repairs workstream, where a key focus would be improving its approach to supporting vulnerable and disabled residents.
15. The landlord’s detailed stage 1 response, along with its apology for the earlier brief reply to the FOI request, appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns. This was consistent with its compensation policy, which states that it will apologise when something has gone wrong.
16. As above, the resident confirmed he was unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated to stage 2.
17. The landlord responded and upheld its stage 1 decision. It was appropriate that the landlord confirmed the correct contact details for the resident to use if he wished to report any further repair issues.
18. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the lack of response to the resident’s email on 14 June 2023, but it explained that the resident often copied multiple contacts into his emails, which made it unclear who should respond. The landlord confirmed which email address the resident should use. This would have helped ensure it directed future queries appropriately and received a response.
19. In response to the resident’s query about consultation on the policy, the landlord explained that the Equality Act sets legal requirements for how it must include reasonable adjustments. This showed that the landlord could not choose how to apply these adjustments, as it must comply with the law.
20. It was fair the landlord provided its explanation as to what “quicker” looks like in practical terms for vulnerable residents. It said response times for disabled residents should be based on individual circumstances rather than a fixed standard. It was able to provide the resident with a screenshot of the system which flagged his vulnerability and requirements. This shows the landlord had recorded his requirements appropriately so that it could consider these when it scheduled repairs and passed them to its contractor.
21. The landlord also clarified that residents could log repairs 24 hours a day, but if it is not an emergency it would be process the next working day. This provided further reassurance to the resident that the landlord accepted repair reports at any time to suit the resident.
22. The landlord provided a fair and reasonable explanation for not completing the repairs review. This was a recommendation made by this Service, which the landlord was not obliged to follow. However, once the landlord told the resident it had accepted the recommendation, it raised the resident’s expectations that it would complete the review within the year. There were shortcomings in the landlord’s communication, and it could have done more earlier in the process. When it made no progress with the review, the resident experienced frustration and disappointment and felt that the landlord didn’t hear his concerns.
23. The landlord apologised and gave detailed responses which showed it had interim processes and practices in place to support reasonable adjustments for vulnerabilities, ahead of a wider transformation project. We recognise this will be a significant undertaking and encourage the landlord to keep residents informed of its progress to ensure transparency.
24. Although the resident has said the interim arrangements do not work in practice, the landlord has investigated the specific instances raised and provided responses when these were brought to its attention. He should report any specific examples he experiences with regards to repairs timescales to the landlord to be able to investigate and put right.
25. The evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged the delay in completing the review. Through its complaint process it put things right by apologising for the frustration caused and providing reassurance about the interim processes it had in place to provide reasonable adjustments. It recognised its failings, took proportionate steps to address it, and provided reasonable redress.

26. The resident experienced issues with his internal intercom system, which is an adaptation that allows him to communicate with and release the communal door. While he did not dispute the timescale in which the landlord responded to the issue, he raised concerns about the lack of communication from the landlord’s contractor regarding its attendance.
27. He told the landlord he was unhappy that the contractor attended without notifying him, particularly as he had previously requested the landlord inform him of any visits due to his disability. He explained that he felt ignored, and that his disability was not being taken seriously.
28. The landlord provided a comprehensive response at both stages of its complaints process. It explained that its contractor had used a subcontractor for this repair and confirmed that it had sent the resident’s appointment requirements. However, it acknowledged that the subcontractor did not make an appointment and attended without prior notice. The landlord explained it treated the repair as urgent due to the resident’s needs. Therefore, the subcontractor attended at the earliest availability, which was in the afternoon, as requested, to avoid disturbing the resident in the morning.
29. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the disruption and frustration caused by the unscheduled visit. It provided reassurance that the contractor was acting with the intention to expedite the repair. It reminded the resident that he could decline any unplanned appointment and request a reschedule if the timing was not suitable.
30. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it will arrange appointments at times that suit the resident and apply special arrangements communicated by vulnerable residents. While the subcontractor may have acted with good intentions, the failure to communicate the visit in advance caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident. As a result, we find there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of communication around the intercom repair. The landlord’s response did not go far enough to put things right. Given that its compensation policy allows for financial redress where distress has been caused, we have made an order for compensation to fully address the impact on the resident.

31. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). Our findings are:
32. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.

Repairs review

33. The landlord issued its stage 1 response after 23 working days, which was over its 10-day target. We have seen no evidence that it contacted the resident to let him know about the delay.
34. The stage 2 response was issued after 42 working days, exceeding the 20-day target. We have seen no evidence that it contacted the resident to let him know about the delay.

Intercom repair

35. The landlord issued its stage 1 response after 8 working days, which was in line with its policy timescales.
36. The stage 2 response was issued after 42 working days, exceeding the 20-day target. We have seen no evidence that it contacted the resident to let him know about the delay.
37. The delays at both stages caused further frustration for the resident. The landlord acknowledged the delays and offered £50. This is in line with our remedies guidance and fairly recognises the impact on the resident.

Learning

38. The landlord should improve its complaint response times and ensure it keeps residents informed when delays occur, in line with the Complaint Handling Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. The landlord’s record keeping was good.

Communication

40. When accepting recommendations or committing to policy reviews, the landlord should provide clear updates to residents to avoid raising expectations.
41. While overall communication was good, the landlord could strengthen its contractor’s approach to communicating repair appointments, particularly where residents have requested specific arrangements due to vulnerabilities.