London Borough of Waltham Forest (202338570)

Background

1. The resident said the landlord contacted her 3 days before Christmas about her rent arrears and threatened court action, which she said was distressing. She also asked it to stop sending her arrears text messages and said it refused to do so. The resident had also told the landlord that she had experienced mental health issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. rent account
   2. complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Rent account

5. The landlord followed its Rent Collection Policy and took appropriate steps to contact the resident about her rent arrears. It signposted her to relevant support and explained its reasons for pausing, rather than stopping, text messages.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its final response was delayed for months, and its apology did not go far enough in putting things 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.

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 have not investigated

7. We may not investigate matters where a resident has had the chance to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. In this case, we can see legal proceedings were issued at court on 6 March 2023. The resident had the chance to raise her concerns about why the landlord applied to court during those legal proceedings. For this reason, our investigation will focus on the landlord’s communication about her rent account.

What we have investigated

8. On 22 December 2022 the landlord contacted the resident about her rent arrears. She shared her personal circumstances and gave it her next payment date. She said she felt unsupported and asked it to stop sending her arrears text messages, as she found them distressing. The resident raised a complaint later that day.
9. After this contact, evidence shows that the landlord contacted external agencies to check if the resident was known to them. This was in line with its Rent Collection Policy and its duty to work in partnership with agencies.
10. In its stage 1 response, dated 23 January 2023, the landlord explained that it had contacted the resident due to increasing arrears. While the resident was unhappy with the timing of its initial contact, the landlord’s actions were consistent with its policy. This requires it to make early contact with residents in arrears.
11. The landlord also said a different staff member called the resident on 23 December 2022. Its explanation about having difficult conversations to provide the appropriate advice and support was reasonable, given its policy’s duty to support residents to manage their arrears.
12. It was appropriate for the landlord to set out the support it could offer and signposted her to external agencies after the resident’s mental health disclosure. This showed it had listened to her and considered available support options.
13. In response to the resident’s request to stop sending text messages, the landlord said it could not do so. It referred to the Ministry of Justice’s Pre-action Protocol (‘Pre-action Protocol’), although this does not require the specific use of text messages.
14. However, given the ongoing arrears and risk to the tenancy, the landlord’s overall approach was reasonable. It explained why it would not remove her number and chose to pause the messages, which was a proportionate and fair response.
15. On 24 January 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord’s response had not addressed her concerns and that she had received text messages after the landlord had paused them.
16. In its stage 2 response, dated 11 May 2023, the landlord repeated its stage 1 findings and set out the support available. This was reasonable given the resident’s concerns about feeling unsupported.
17. Although the landlord reasonably explained why the resident had received additional text messages, it fell short of telling her this when it initially paused the texts. It also applied a further 2-month pause. This showed it recognised the impact of the messages on the resident.
18. The landlord repeated that the Pre-action Protocol requires it to use all means to contact residents. This was not accurate, as the protocol does not prescribe specific communication methods. Instead, the protocol says landlords should contact tenants in arrears as soon as reasonably possible.
19. When considering a case, we look at both the resident’s experience and the landlord’s responses, and whether it considered its responsibilities under any relevant policies, procedures, or legislation. We look at the evidence available to us from both parties and consider what was fair, reasonable, and proportionate in the circumstances.
20. We recognise the resident found this a distress experience. While the landlord fell short of telling her she may continue to receive texts, it showed due regard to its duties under its policy and the Pre-action Protocol. There are no restrictions on making contact shortly before Christmas, so the timing of its initial contact was not inappropriate. It also recognised that these situations could involve difficult discussions where residents may face potential enforcement action.

21. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
22. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s Complaints Policy timeframes were not consistent with the Code. The landlord has since updated its policy to comply. The landlord’s complaint definitions throughout the process met the Code.
23. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint, dated 22 December 2022. This was not consistent with the Code, which requires acknowledgement within 5 working days.
24. The landlord gave its stage 1 response 19 working days later on 23 January 2023. While this met its policy’s 20 working day timeframe, it did not meet the Code. This allows 10 working days. However, there is no evidence this had a significant impact on the resident at that stage.
25. On 24 January 2023 the resident escalated her complaint, which was not acknowledged by the landlord. It gave its final response, dated 11 May 2023, 74 working days later. This significantly exceeded the Code’s 20 working day timeframe, and its policy’s 25 working day timeframe.
26. The Code allows landlords to extend response deadlines where there is a good reason. However, there is no evidence the landlord informed the resident of any extension or kept her updated. This lack of communication would likely have left the resident uncertain about when she would receive a response.
27. Although the landlord apologised for any uncertainty in its final response, it did not show it considered whether compensation would be appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord’s communication was poor, and these failings likely caused the resident to lose confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.
28. When deciding our compensation award, we have considered the impact on the resident, the landlord’s Compensation Policy, and our compensation guidance. This sets out that awards of up to £50 are appropriate where failures cause a loss of confidence.

Learning

29. The landlord demonstrated good practice by contacting external agencies after the resident disclosed her mental health issues. This is a positive approach which helps enables it to support effective partnership working and identify the appropriate support.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord kept detailed records of the actions and conversations it had with the resident about her rent account. This was positive. Keeping good records allows the landlord to evidence its decision‑making and support accountability.

Communication

31. Acknowledging complaints on time is essential for compliance. Even minor delays can sometimes create uncertainty and undermine residents’ confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.