London Borough of Waltham Forest (202312763)

Background

1. The leaseholder complained in 2022 that the landlord delayed unreasonably in completing a number of outstanding works at her property which she rents to private tenants. We investigated her complaint and issued a report on 23 May 2023. We found the landlord had provided reasonable redress for its delays in handling her repairs until its final response in October 2022. The leaseholder then raised a new complaint with the landlord about ongoing delays on 12 March 2023. She complained that delays then continued following the landlord’s final response in September 2023. The landlord completed the repairs on 12 August 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled external repairs at the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in:
      1. How the landlord handled external repairs at the property.
      2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord delayed significantly in completing the outstanding external repairs. This was not in line with its policy. However, it has already offered suitable compensation to put this right and apologised as per our remedies guidance.
6. The landlord failed to address the leaseholder’s stage 1 and 2 complaints within the timescales in its policy. However, it apologised for these failings and offered her an appropriate sum of compensation to put this right.

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.

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 have not considered.

7. Our Scheme does not allow us to consider matters which we have already investigated. On 23 May 2023 we issued an investigation report which addressed the landlord’s actions from January 2022 until 21 October 2022. We did not consider the landlord’s handling of repairs from 22 October onwards. Therefore, this investigation has only considered the landlord’s actions from 22 October 2022 onwards.

What we have considered

8. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will complete “significant repairs” to walls within 45 days. It goes onto explain that its contractors are expected to complete repairs on the first visit. However, when this is not possible due to unforeseen circumstances or complexity, it will amend the completion timescale and record this.
9. The leaseholder’s occupancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for maintaining all external walls. It is also responsible for maintaining the external structure of the windows.
10. On 13 March 2023 the leaseholder complained that the landlord had failed to complete repointing works and brickwork repairs around the window. On 19 April 2023 she emailed and thanked the landlord for inspecting the property on 13 April 2023. The landlord failed to keep a record of this visit as per its repairs policy. In her email the leaseholder advised that
    1. The landlord had failed to complete repointing works outside the kitchen or on the balcony wall.
    2. The external kitchen window frame was rotting.
    3. She considered these issues were causing water ingress.
    4. There was damp and mould on the bathroom ceiling and the surveyor had advised this was due to a lack of insulation in the loft and clogged guttering.
11. The landlord replied on 17 May 2025 and noted it had discussed this email with the leaseholder the day before. There is no record of this call. It explained it would complete repointing works, install insulation, and replace the window within 6 weeks.
12. Given the leaseholder reported these issues on 16 April 2023, the projected completion date for the works was 28 days past its complex repair timescales. In any case, the landlord failed to attempt any of the works by the time it issued a stage 1 response on 12 July 2023.
13. It explained that it had completed the following works across 14 to 16 November 2022:
    1. “Repointing to side and rear elevation.
    2. Cut out and replace faulty bricks on balcony.
    3. Clean out debris from gutters and gulley, and remove spoil on completion to “3no elevation”.
14. While there are repairs which note these works orders, and note that these were “completed” over this period in November 2022, there is no further detail recorded. Therefore, it is difficult for us to reach a view on whether the landlord completed these repairs, or to what standard. It is also unclear how the landlord satisfied itself that it completed these works given the lack of detail in the records.
15. The landlord went on to commit to completing repointing works, installing insulation, and repairing the window by September 2023. It explained that the repointing faults were not visible at the previous inspection.
16. There is no record of the April 2023 inspection, or any detail in the repair records from November and December 2022. Therefore, it is unclear how the landlord reached the view that repointing issues were not previously visible. We do not consider this to be an evidence-based response. It seems more likely that outstanding issues were missed at visits which may have taken place in November and December 2022. The landlord also failed to mention the guttering works which it committed to in its 17 May 2023 email. We note that it offered the leaseholder £100 for inconvenience caused by its ongoing delays in completing outstanding “associated repairs”.
17. On 6 August 2023 the leaseholder complained the landlord had failed to attempt to complete the repointing, brickwork, guttering, or insulation works. The landlord took no further action in relation to these works or the resident’s email until its stage 2 response on 23 January 2024. Its delay in taking any action to progress the works or respond to the leaseholder here was unreasonable and delayed the eventual resolution of the issues.
18. In its final response the landlord apologised for the delay in addressing the leaseholder’s complaint. This was positive. It also explained that it had tried to contact the leaseholder to request her tenants’ contact details to progress things on 7 June 2023. There is no record of the landlord’s attempts to contact the tenants. It noted that the works had also been delayed by the tenants’ refusal to allow access on weekdays. The landlord failed to record its contact with the tenants. Therefore, we are not persuaded it took reasonable steps to progress things. It acknowledged partial responsibility for delays and asked the leaseholder to provide the tenants details to schedule the outstanding works. We note it offered the leaseholder £200 as redress for delays in completing the works. However, it failed to provide updated timescales for completion of the works as per its repairs policy.
19. The landlord emailed its contractor on 14 February 2024 and asked it to revisit and complete the outstanding works. It agreed to do so, but the landlord then failed to raise any associated works orders. This lack of action likely delayed things further. On 19 February 2024 the leaseholder advised the landlord that it should have contacted her to let her know that her tenants were being unresponsive. We note she did not provide the requested contact details, and that this likely slightly contributed to ongoing delays.
20. The landlord responded on 19 February 2024 and asked the leaseholder to outline her availability on weekdays. This was a positive step towards progressing the works. The leaseholder responded on 28 February 2024 and asked the landlord to book an appointment with her. Over the next 2 months the leaseholder chased the landlord for progress. We note the landlord chased its contractor repeatedly throughout this period.
21. On 20 April 2024 the contractor partially completed the repointing works and installed insulation in the loft. Therefore, the landlord completed these specific works 320 days past its complex repair timescales. While we note there were access issues due to the tenants’ availability, we do not consider the landlord acted robustly to overcome these issues.
22. Immediately following the installation of the insulation, and partial completion of repointing works, repairs, the leaseholder advised that the window replacement and guttering works remained outstanding. She continued to chase these works for the next 3 months. The landlord was unable to provide her with any timescales in response to these emails. This was not in line with its repairs policy.
23. On 9 July 2024 the landlord advised that it would complete the remaining repointing works on 13 July 2024. However, its contractor immediately followed this up and advised the works were indefinitely postponed due to staff sickness. While we accept unforeseen events can delay things, the landlord should have provided updated timescales as per its policy. The leaseholder continued to chase the works until they were all eventually completed on 12 August 2024. This means the landlord delayed in completing the repointing, guttering works, and window replacement by 537 days.
24. We recognise the mitigating factors of the access issues. We also note that the landlord made consistent efforts to chase its contractor to progress things from February 2024 until August 2024. However, the landlord is ultimately responsible for delays caused by its contractors.. The length of this delay was unreasonable and likely caused the leaseholder distress and inconvenience.
25. The landlord offered the leaseholder a total of £300 compensation at stages 1 and 2 to address delays in progressing the works up until January 2024. We also note that it acted positively by apologising and issuing a further compensation offer of £250 on 17 September 2024. It explained this was to address delays from February 2024 to August 2024.
26. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £100 to £600 are appropriate to put right failures which have adversely, but not permanently, impacted complainants. The landlord has offered the leaseholder a total sum of £550 to address delays in completing works from November 2022 to August 2024. In determining whether this is reasonable we have considered that:
    1. The landlord delayed significantly beyond its timescales in completing the works.
    2. The leaseholder incurred repeated inconvenience in chasing the repairs from March 2023 onwards.
27. However, we have also considered:
    1. The access issues posed by the tenants’ availability to allow access.
    2. The landlord’s repeated efforts to chase its contractor.
    3. That the impact of the delays on the leaseholder was likely limited to frustration and inconvenience incurred by chasing repairs given she did not live at the property.
28. With all this in mind, we consider the landlord suitably addressed its omissions by offering a sum at the upper end of our compensation scale. For this reason, we consider there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the external repairs. We have recommended that the landlord pays the leaseholder this sum if it has not already.

29. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 48 hours and issue a response within 10 working days. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and issue a response within 20 working days. When it is unable to do so it will explain this and provide updated timescales. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
30. The leaseholder raised a stage 1 complaint on 13 March 2023. The landlord failed to acknowledge this. It then failed to issue a response until 12 July 2023. This was 61 working days past its timescales. She raised a stage 2 complaint on 6 August 2023. However, the landlord failed to address this until 23 January 2024. This was 111 working days past its timescales. These delays likely caused the leaseholder distress.
31. However, we note the landlord apologised and has already offered the leaseholder £350 in compensation as redress for this. Its compensation policy explains that payments for distress are typically moderate sums between £100 and £300. Therefore, it has already offered the leaseholder a sum exceeding the upper end of its scale. For this reason, we consider it has done enough to put its complaint handling delays right.

Learning

32. The landlord’s handling of the repairs was generally poor. It repeatedly missed opportunities to progress works, and failed to take any action for substantial periods. However, it did well to issue a revised compensation offer and apology following completion of the repairs.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. There are no direct records of its attempts to contact the tenants. Its repairs records from November 2022 and December 2022 were also very brief and did not detail what actions were taken to complete the repairs. It also failed to record the 13 April 2023 inspection. We encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of good record keeping and how this may have helped it more efficiently handle the repairs.

Communication

34. The landlord’s communication was poor up until April 2024. From this stage onwards, we note it was relatively responsive to the leaseholder’s requests for updates. However, it was unable to provide detailed updates on most occasions. We encourage the landlord to reflect on how better communication may have mitigated the ongoing impact of the delays on the leaseholder.