London Borough of Waltham Forest (202413055)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord in February 2024 about a phone call she received from it the previous month. The landlord issued its final complaint response in June 2024. It did not uphold the complaint as it said it could not evidence any concerns regarding staff conduct on the call. The resident remains unhappy about how the call was handled and is seeking an apology form the officer who made the call.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to take the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration when it was reviewing her concerns. As a result, its communication with her lacked empathy and did not demonstrate an eagerness to put things right for her.
7. There were complaint handling failures which the landlord largely acknowledged and provided adequate redress for.

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.

8. As an outcome to the complaint, the resident said that she would like an apology from the officer who made the call in January 2024. When investigating a complaint, we consider the landlord’s actions as a whole. We will only refer to individual staff where they act on the landlord’s behalf. If an individual’s actions cause a service failure, we will make findings and remedies against the landlord, not the individual. We cannot require the landlord to take disciplinary action against staff. We also cannot order remedies from individuals, such as personal apologies.
9. The landlord’s rent collection policy states that it will act with sensitivity to residents’ needs. This approach aims to sustain tenancies and ensure the service follows customer care and diversity principles.
10. The resident raised concerns about a call she had received on 11 January 2024, about her rent arrears. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it did not have a recording of the call. It asked the resident to provide further information so that it could conduct an investigation. Its approach was appropriate. It confirmed its position and demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns seriously at the time.
11. The evidence provided to us demonstrates that the landlord reviewed the call notes it had on its system from the date of the call. It also interviewed the staff member involved to discuss the allegations.
12. This was in line with the landlord’s conduct and discipline policy and procedure which calls for such breeches of conduct to be resolved informally. While we recognise the frustration felt by the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to follow the policy it had in place for dealing with situations such as these.
13. It was positive that, once made aware of the resident’s concerns, the landlord took steps to investigate the matter and satisfy itself that its staff member had acted appropriately. It was a shortcoming, however, that it did not share this information with the resident. This would have shown that it had taken her concerns seriously. It could also have repaired some of the damage the call had on the landlord tenant relationship.
14. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s telephony system. She felt it was an imbalance of power that ingoing calls from residents were recorded but outgoing calls made by the landlord were not. She asked that any future calls to her be recorded to avoid an incident like the call in January 2024.
15. The landlord said in its final response that its system did not record calls and no future calls to the resident would be recorded. While we appreciate the shortcomings of the telephony system it had in place at that time, given the vulnerabilities of the resident in relation to her mental health and the impact she had told it the call had on her, it would have been reasonable to discuss other options or methods to communicate with her in future. This could have provided some level of reassurance and avoided further distress and inconvenience.
16. That it did not mean that the landlord’s response lacked empathy. However, it gave no reassurance that it had oversight of calls or was listening to her concerns. Its response also departed from its rent collection policy which says it will act sensitivity to resident’s needs. 
17. The landlord has confirmed to the Service that following the complaint, it changed its telephony system in December 2024, and all calls are now recorded. This may provide some level of reassurance to the resident about future calls with the landlord.
18. The landlord acted largely in line with its policies and procedures when it handled the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. The resident said the call on 11 January 2024 had a significant and lasting impact on her mental health and wellbeing. Better communication and greater regard for her vulnerabilities could have reduced this impact. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by this failing. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance for such failings that the landlord did not fully acknowledge or put right.

19. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. This is compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code).
20. The resident raised her complaint on 22 February 2024, but we have seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged it. On 6 March 2024, it issued a stage 1 response, but this did not address the complaint and instead asked for more information. If it had acknowledged the complaint in line with its policy, it could have requested this earlier and avoided delays. It did not send a full response until 17 April 2024, 38 working days later, which exceeded its timescales.
21. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 20 May 2024. It is unclear if the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It responded on 20 June 2024. This was a total of 22 working days later and slightly exceeded the landlord’s policy timescales.
22. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for delays in handling both complaints within its timescales. It offered £25 for each delay, totalling £50 compensation. While it was positive it recognised its failure to respond in a timely manner and the impact this had on the resident, it was a shortcoming that it did not identify its earlier failure to follow its policy and issued 2 separate stage 1 complaint responses.
23. While we have not seen evidence that this caused detriment to the resident, it may have been confusing for her on knowing where her complaint was in the process and what she could expect next in the process. We have made a learning recommendation for the landlord regarding its future complaint handling, as well as a recommendation for it to contact the resident about her desire to move.
24. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord’s offer of compensation falls within our compensation guidance for cases in which there has been a minor impact on the resident. We consider that, as the failings caused minor detriment to the resident, its offer of compensation satisfactorily resolved the landlord’s complaint handling failures, so we have made a recommendation for this to be paid, if it has not been already.

Learning

25. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s complaint handling can be strengthened. Therefore, it may wish to complete our eLearning on complaint handling and communication, which it can find on the Centre for Learning section of our website.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord’s records were clear. This allowed the sequence of events and actions taken to be easily understood for this investigation.

Communication

27. The landlord may want to consider how it communicates with residents during its complaints process. Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights highlights the importance of empathy and use of tone to support positive communication with its residents.