We are currently experiencing technical difficulties with our online complaints form. Please contact us by phone during this time.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (202321929)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321929

Waltham Forest Council

29 August 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s management of the resident’s ASB reports.
    2. The landlord’s handling of a report that one of its employees assaulted the resident.
    3. The landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction (Determination)

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Within the resident’s complaint to us, he requested that we consider the landlord’s management of ASB reports. The resident also makes claims of ASB reports not being taken seriously by the landlord. These form two separate elements of the complaint. The allegations of ASB reports not being taken seriously will be addressed within the complaint handling element of the report. This is because they were never recorded as ASB by the landlord and were not raised until the complaint was made. The focus of the resident’s complaint was the conduct of a member of staff.
  3. The ASB reports that the resident references were not made prior to the landlord ending the complaint process on 25 September 2023. The landlord said it had no records of any such reports of ASB from the resident prior to the end of the complaint process. This means that these ASB reports did not form part of the initial complaint and, as such, were not addressed by the landlord.
  4. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In view of this, the handling of ASB reports made after 25 September 2023 will not be addressed within this report as they fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  5. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s management of the resident’s ASB reports is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  6. A separate complaint would need to be made to the landlord that would allow it to follow its internal complaint policy and address the resident’s concerns about those ASB reports. Were the resident to remain dissatisfied after completion of the complaints process, he could bring this to the Ombudsman as a new case.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 6 December 2010. The property is a one-bed flat in a block of high-rise flats.
  2. On 14 July 2023, a Tenancy Officer (‘TO’) from the landlord reported an incident with the resident outside a local supermarket the day before. The TO claimed that the resident had noticed him, became abusive and made threats of violence. He said the resident followed him to his car and continued to make threats before kicking his car. The TO said he got out of the car and the resident pushed him before leaving, continuing to make threats as he left.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 August 2023 to provide a warning about tenancy breaches relating to that incident and other reports of ASB by the resident. In a separate letter, dated the same day, it requested a telephone interview with him on 21 August 2023 to discuss those matters.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 17 August 2023 and made a counter allegation that the TO had assaulted him on 13 July 2023. The resident said he reported it to the police and they had CCTV of the incident.  The resident claimed that the TO had a “vendetta” against him and that he did not take him seriously when he had reported harassment from other neighbours.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response the next day. It acknowledged the complaint and the allegations made within it. The landlord said that it would be investigated thoroughly but as it could be a disciplinary matter, he would not be advised of the outcome or any action taken against the employee. The landlord acknowledged that the police had been informed and said it would assist them with any enquiries.
  6. The landlord called the resident on 21 August 2023 to discuss the allegations made in its letter of 15 August 2023. The resident disputed the allegations and said he was assaulted. The call was noted as being terminated prematurely, due to the resident’s abusive behaviour and language.
  7. On 21 September 2023, the resident requested an escalation of his complaint as he was not satisfied with the landlord’s responses. He also claimed that the landlord had not investigated claims of harassment and stalking that he had made.
  8. The landlord responded on 25 September 2023 and said that it would not carry out a review of the stage 1 complaint as the resident did not respond within the 28 calendar day timeframe it set out for complaint escalation. It also advised the resident that he should raise a new complaint for the issues that had not been raised at stage 1.  

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a report that one of its employees assaulted the resident

  1. Any claim of assault is a criminal matter and, as such, only the police can make a finding around either party’s culpability. This investigation will focus solely on the landlord’s management of the resident’s counter claim, rather than what happened on 13 July 2023.
  2. It is evident that following the resident’s counter claim that the TO had assaulted him, the landlord decided that this would be a matter that would be investigated internally, rather than as a standard complaint. Given that if the claims were found to be true, it would lead to disciplinary measures being taken, it was reasonable that the landlord decided on this course of action.
  3. Any personnel matters are subject to confidentiality and the landlord would not be able to provide any information about disciplinary investigations or action. Paragraph 42h of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider terms of employment or personnel issues. On this basis, this Service is not aware of, and also not able to comment on, any such actions taken by the landlord.
  4. It is evident from the information provided to this Service that the landlord did make a disclosure request to the police following the resident’s complaint. It made a request to the police for any information relevant to the incident in September 2023, following a report of the resident being arrested on 3 September 2023.
  5. The police provided a report to the landlord on 4 October 2023; this included details of recent reports linked to the resident. The report did not include any report or details of the alleged assault from 13 July 2023, or any record of being in possession of CCTV evidence of the incident, as per the resident’s claim.
  6. It is clear from this request that in keeping with any normal investigation process, the landlord did seek further information and evidence relating to the allegations. This demonstrates that an active investigation was underway after the landlord had advised the resident that it would do so.
  7. Ultimately, this Service is unable to comment on the incident itself, or the outcome of any internal disciplinary investigation. However, it is clear that the landlord did act on the resident’s allegations as it contacted the police (based on the resident’s claim that he had reported this to them and they had evidence of the incident). It was reasonable of the landlord to inform the resident in its stage 1 response that it would treat the allegation as a disciplinary matter. Given the actions taken by the landlord, this Service makes a finding of no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord provided its response to the stage 1 complaint quickly but given the severity of the claims from the resident, this was reasonable. It outlined its position around the complaint and provided a reasonable explanation of what would happen and why the resident would not be informed of any action taken against the TO.
  2. Although the landlord acknowledged the resident’s claims of the TO having a “vendetta”, it did not fully acknowledge his claims of his reports being ignored by the TO. It is understandable that this may have been something that it would look into as part of its internal investigation. However, this still did not form sufficient acknowledgement of the resident’s claims that he was being “harassed”. The landlord missed an opportunity at this stage to arrange for somebody, independent of the situation, to contact him and record his concerns. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord that likely left the resident feeling that his concerns were not being addressed, as he later referred to it in his escalation request. 
  3. The landlord then refused to carry out an investigation at stage 2 of its process as the resident had not requested it within the timeframe set out in the stage 1 response. The resident’s request was made 6 days after the quoted timeframe of 28 calendar days.
  4. Although it was made was made outside of the quoted timeframe, the landlord could have used its discretion before making the decision to refuse the escalation request. Given the exceptional circumstances of the complaint that had been made, it is the view of the Ombudsman that it would have been reasonable for it to have accepted the request in this instance. Had it done so, it may have identified that the reports of harassment were yet to be acknowledged or recorded for further investigation. 
  5. The escalation of the complaint and an investigation at stage 2 would not have changed the landlord’s position that the main complaint would be dealt with internally. However, it could have used this opportunity to reiterate the process that would be used and the reasons for it. It could have also advised that since the stage 1 response, it had made a police disclosure request in an attempt to gain an understanding of the incident. Along with this update, it could have shown that it was taking action on his reports of harassment. Had it done so, the resident may have been reassured that his complaints were being taken seriously.
  6. Ultimately, the landlord did manage the complaint in a timely manner. However, in addressing the key issue, the landlord has overlooked a claim from the resident, which it could have taken action to address. In refusing a stage 2 investigation, it removed the possibility of it identifying something it had missed at stage 1 and also the opportunity to assure the resident that it had taken significant steps in investigating the substantive issue linked to its employee. Having considered its management of the complaint, this Service makes a finding of service failure.    

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s management of the resident’s ASB reports is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a report that one of its employees assaulted the resident.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report;
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of his complaint. This should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within 28 days with evidence of compliance with these orders.