London Borough of Waltham Forest (202414674)

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of flats, accessed via a single communal front entrance door using a fob. On or around 11 March 2024, the resident reported that the front entrance door was not working. She express dissatisfaction that the door repair would not be completed the same day, when the landlord had previously told her such repairs should be carried out within four hours. The resident expressed concern that this is a persistent issue, and that the landlord has failed to implement any long‑term solutions, leaving residents at continued risk of being locked out of the building.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the repair of a door entry system.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for its handling of the repair of a door entry system.

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

Reasons

What we did not investigate

4. The resident said the issues with the door entrance system were persistent and that she had previously raised these with the landlord in 2022. In assessing this complaint, we have relied on the landlord’s complaints policy. The policy states that the landlord will not usually consider events that occurred more than 12 months prior to a complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response explained this to the resident. This approach is also in keeping with our Complaint Handling Code (The Code), and we will mirror that timeframe in our investigation. As the resident’s stage 1 complaint was submitted on 14 March 2024, matters occurring in 2022 fall outside of the scope of this investigation.

What we did investigate

Repair of a door entry system

5. The resident said she reported a fault with the communal door entrance system to the landlord on 11 March 2024.  In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said the issue was not reported to it until 12 March 2024. This is reflected in its repair logs, and we have seen no evidence to the contrary. The description of the repair issue show that the repair was logged as a defective front entrance door, that the fob keys were not working on the panel for residents and for the repair to be treated as ‘urgent’.
6. The landlord’s repairs policy requires emergency repairs to be attended within four hours. Door entry faults that prevent access fall into this category. The landlord attended the repair on 14 March 2024, two days outside the emergency timescale. The repair record shows that the landlord understood the nature of the fault and marked it as ‘urgent’ in the description field. This indicates that the repair job was not entered correctly on the landlord’s repairs system, for it to be allocated on a four-hour emergency timescale. ‘Urgent’ is a separate repair category in the landlord’s repairs policy, which requires a 5-day attendance. It is likely use of the word urgent when logging the repair meant it was logged under this category by mistake. This error caused delay and inconvenience for the resident, who feared being unable to access the block.
7. The repair logs confirm the landlord attended on 14 March 2024. It found that the intercom power supply had blown. It fitted a new power supply and tested the door, which then worked.
8. A new repair was raised on 18 March 2024 for the door entry system. The landlord attended the same day, tested the fobs, and resolved the problem. It later returned out–of–hours to continue investigating and test the door. After that visit, it turned the power off so the doors would stay open for residents. Given the recurring faults, the power issues, and the lack of a clear root cause, this precaution was reasonable. In its stage 1 response the landlord also said that this was its “protocol” for such situations. However, this repair request was raised after the landlord received the resident’s complaint and the evidence shows the earlier issue has already been resolved. As this was effectively a duplicate repair, the landlord appears not to have checked its own repair records before raising a new job.
9. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 March 2024. It accepted that it had likely failed to accurately diagnose and appropriately triage the repair when it was first reported. It also accepted that it should have attended sooner if it had categorised the repair correctly. Although the landlord had no evidence of a report about faulty fobs before 12 March 2024, it acknowledged delays in attending an emergency repair. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble. It offered a further £25 for a missed appointment unrelated to the door entry issue, which falls outside the scope of this investigation.
10. The landlord also said it would review the failure it identified and take steps to prevent it happening again. This was in keeping with our dispute resolution principle to learn from the outcomes of complaints.
11. The resident escalated her complaint because she felt the landlord had not addressed her proposals to ensure residents were aware of how to report door entry system issues and how they should be handled. These proposals were not included in her stage 1 complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 April 2024. It said it had considered her suggestions but found “no reasonable grounds to suggest that your proposals are necessary to ensure residents are able to make reports of defects.” This was reasonable as the landlords repairs policy and contact details are publicly available and accessible via its website.
12. It also saw no evidence that her proposals were required for the block. The landlord explained it would not introduce a block‑specific policy change but noted wider plans to improve communication around communal repairs, including pilots like electronic noticeboards. This position was reasonable given the operational difficulties of applying one‑off policies to a single block. Nor have we seen any evidence to suggest the resident’s block is at higher risk of door entry failure than any other so as to necessitate such treatment.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy states that remedies should be considered where a resident has been adversely affected by a service failure. In this case, the landlord offered £50 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by the delay in its repairing the door entry system. This approach aligns with both the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance for cases where failings have led to minimal impact on a resident for a short duration. This means the compensation offered was reasonable and proportionate.
14. In summary, the landlord acknowledged the shortcomings in its handling of the repair issue, which led to it attending two days later than the required emergency timeframe. It recognised the inconvenience the resident experienced and offered compensation to reflect this. The landlord also addressed the resident’s resolution proposals and provided a reasonable explanation for not enacting these. Taken together, these actions represent a reasonable offer of redress for its handling of matters.

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.