London Borough of Waltham Forest (202412431)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412431

Waltham Forest Council

28 March 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to a bedroom ceiling.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a non-secure tenant and she lives in a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a local council.
Around 8 January 2024, the resident reported that her bedroom ceiling had been damaged by a leak. The landlord raised an order to repair it.
The resident complained on 18 March 2024. She said the roof had leaked after solar panels were installed in 2012 and the bedroom ceiling had never been repaired. She said she had not used the bedroom since 2013 because the landlord’s surveyor had told her not to. She wanted the landlord to repair the ceiling, explain the cause of the delay and pay her compensation.
The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 22 April 2024 which said it:
1. Agreed that she had reported leaks from 2012 but there had been a 10 year gap in her reports.
2. Had investigated back to April 2021 and found that it had repaired the roof and bedroom ceiling by 28 December 2021. There had been service failure because it had taken too long to do the repairs.
3. Had inspected on 1 February 2024 after she reported the ceiling again and arranged an asbestos test.
4. Could not say when the ceiling would be repaired but had chased its contractor.
5. Offered £600 compensation for the delayed repairs, loss of facility and distress and inconvenience.
On 30 April 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She was unhappy because the issues were not resolved.
The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 6 November 2024. It said it would not investigate her complaint because some events happened more than 12 months ago.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate. She was unhappy the landlord had refused to investigate her complaint at stage 2 and with the time taken to complete the repairs. She wanted the landlord to pay her more compensation for the delays, being unable to use the bedroom and damage to her belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint with a reasonable period. A reasonable period is normally within 12 months of the matter arising.
The evidence shows the resident reported the roof leaks and damage to her ceiling from at least April 2021. The roof was repaired in November 2021. The resident disputes there was a 10 year gap in her reports. She says the roof leaked from 2012 and the landlord does not have records of her reports or repairs it has done due to changing its contractors.
There is no evidence the resident complained to the landlord before 18 March 2024. This means that we can only investigate back to March 2023 which was 12 months before she complained.
There is no evidence of reports about the ceiling between March and December 2023. As such, the scope of this investigation is the landlord’s handling of the ceiling repairs from 8 January 2024 when the resident reported it again.

Bedroom ceiling repairs

The landlord has duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to repair its homes. It must carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale. What is considered to be a reasonable timescale depends on the type of work needed.
The landlord’s repairs policy at the time (effective from 2022) explains it provides its repair service through a contractor. At the time, the target timescale for completing non urgent repairs was within 14 days of the initial appointment.
The resident reported the damaged ceiling by telephone. We have not seen the landlord’s call records so cannot confirm the date of her report. The landlord raised an order on 8 January 2024 for its contractor to attend within 14 days. This was in line with its repair policy at the time.
A note added on 1 February 2024 suggests the contractor had attended but could not do the repair. The note said an asbestos test was needed first. This was 24 days after the landlord had raised the order so the repair was already late.
The asbestos test was done a few days later on 6 February 2024. A report dated 8 February 2024 confirms the ceiling contained asbestos which was assessed as very low risk if it was not disturbed. The report says the asbestos containing materials (ACMs) may need sealing but there is no recommendation for their removal. It is not clear from the landlord’s evidence why the ceiling repair was not arranged promptly after the asbestos test was done.
The landlord knew from at least 18 March 2024 that the resident had been sleeping on her sofa since 2013. In her complaint, she gave the name of officers she said had told her the bedroom was not safe to use. There is no evidence the landlord disagreed with her understanding that it had told her she should not use the bedroom.
The landlord also knew from at least 18 March 2024 that the resident has health conditions affecting her mobility. She explained how these were affected by her sleeping on the sofa. This should have caused the landlord to have had due regard to its obligations under the Care Act 2014 to protect vulnerable adults. There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether the resident was vulnerable or at risk of harm at any point.
Given the resident’s circumstances, the landlord should have handled the repair with an appropriate level of urgency. It should have taken steps to avoid further delays.
From 22 April 2024, the contractor and landlord exchanged emails. The emails show there was a difference in opinion about the work needed. The contractor felt the ceiling should be removed and replaced while the landlord felt it would be sufficient to seal in the ACMs.
It took 10 weeks, until 1 July 2024, for the landlord and contractor to agree to sealing in the ACMs rather than replacing the ceiling. This was not a reasonable timescale. The landlord should have communicated with its contractor effectively and decided the scope of the repair sooner.
The ACMs in the resident’s bedroom ceiling were sealed on 22 August 2024. This means it took the landlord almost 8 months to do the repair. This was far longer than the 14 day timescale of its repair policy. It was inappropriate that the resident had to wait so long for the work.
It took a further 2 months for the landlord to decorate the ceiling after the repair. Again, this was not a reasonable timescale given the delays up to this point.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ceiling repair. This is because:
1. It took almost 8 months to do the repair when its policy said the timescale should be within 14 days of the initial appointment.
2. It took no steps to progress the repair sooner despite knowing about the resident’s health conditions and that she was sleeping on her sofa.
3. There is no evidence it kept the resident informed of progress or delays.
4. There is no evidence it had due regard to its obligations under the Care Act 2014 as it should have.
The resident has explained the distress and inconvenience caused. She told us sleeping on the sofa has been uncomfortable and inconvenient, and affected her sleep and daily life. She feels the landlord has been uncaring and dismissive of her throughout. She said it was stressful and inconvenient to have to keep reporting the disrepair and chasing the landlord to act.
The landlord offered £600 compensation through its complaint process. It was for the delay in repairs, impact on the resident’s facilities, and her distress and inconvenience. We do not think this was enough redress given the failings we have identified.
We have ordered the landlord to pay £1,050 compensation. We have calculated this at £25 per week for the 22 weeks (from 18 March 2024 to 22 August 2024) when the landlord knew she was not using her bedroom and £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and reflects the resident’s vulnerabilities and the period she was affected by the landlord’s failings.

Complaint handling

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
The resident complained by email on 18 March 2024. The landlord should have logged the complaint and acknowledged it within 5 working days. There is no evidence it did so. It is not clear from the evidence why the landlord failed to act on this complaint. This was a failing that delayed the resident’s access to its complaint process.
She complained again on 1 April 2024. This time the landlord did log and acknowledge the complaint. It sent its stage 1 response of 22 April 2024 within 10 working days of acknowledging her second complaint email.
The Code says landlords can exclude matters that happened more than 12 months ago from their complaints policy. The landlord in this case has this exclusion in its policy. As such, it was entitled to decide not to investigate the resident’s complaint back to 2012 when her roof first leaked.
It was reasonable that the landlord decided to investigate back to April 2021 when the resident had reported the roof leaking again. As this was 3 years before the resident complained, it shows the landlord was willing to investigate further than its policy required it to. It was also reasonable that the landlord found failings in its handling of the roof and ceiling repairs in 2021.
The stage 1 response of 22 April 2024 said the landlord could not consider the resident’s request for a rent refund. It said this was because to do so was outside of its jurisdiction for stage 1 complaint. It is not clear why the landlord said this as there is no reference to rent refund requests being outside jurisdiction in its complaint procedure at the time. We think the landlord did not give an accurate explanation of why it would not consider the resident’s request.
The stage 1 response did not address the resident’s request for compensation for belongings damaged by the leaks. The Code says landlords must address all parts of a complaint and it was a failing that the landlord did not do so. In line with its complaints policy, it should have told the resident how she could claim from its insurance. The landlord’s failure to address this part of her complaint may have prevented the resident from being able to claim from its insurance.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 April 2024 asking it to escalate her complaint. It is not clear from the landlord’s records why it did not escalate it at that point. The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint delayed it progressing through the landlord’s complaint process.
On 25 July 2024, the resident emailed again chasing the landlord for a stage 2 response. There is no evidence the landlord replied to her email.
She emailed again on 29 August 2024. On this occasion, the landlord did respond. It told the resident she needed to email the council’s corporate complaints team to escalate her complaint. This was not reasonable given the resident had already been trying to escalate her complaint for 4 months by this time. The landlord should have systems in place to make sure that complaints and escalation requests are passed on to the appropriate teams when they are received by other staff.
The resident emailed the corporate complaints team on 6 September 2024. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged her escalation request and it gave its stage 2 response 43 working days later on 6 November 2024. It is not clear from the landlord’s records why its stage 2 response said it had received the escalation request on 16 October 2024.
The landlord was wrong to refuse to investigate the resident’s complaint at stage 2. Its response said it would not do so because “some” of the events took place more than 12 months ago.
This is not in line with the requirements of the Code which says landlords must accept complaints referred to them within 12 months of the issue occurring. The resident’s complaint and escalation request included events that took place within 12 months of her complaining. For example, in her initial complaint she said she had not heard anything since the asbestos test done 3 weeks previously. In some escalation requests she said the ceiling had still not been repaired.
The landlord should have at least investigated the events that took place within the 12 months before the resident’s initial complaint of 18 March 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the same period it had at stage 1.
The landlord’s decision not to investigate the complaint at all meant it missed the opportunity to resolve it during its complaint process. It also missed the opportunity to identify what had gone wrong and learn from its mistakes.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is because:
1. It did not log the resident’s initial complaint of 18 March 2024.
2. Its stage 1 response did not accurately explain why it would not consider her request for a rent refund. Nor did it address her request for compensation for her damaged belongings.
3. It did not escalate her complaint when she asked it to on 30 April 2024 and missed other opportunities to escalate the complaint.
4. It was wrong to refuse to investigate the complaint at stage 2.
The resident has explained the distress and inconvenience caused to her. It was inconvenient to have to chase the landlord to progress her complaint. She felt the landlord’s refusal to investigate at stage 2 meant it did not care about the impact on her.
We have ordered the landlord to pay £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. It reflects the failings we identified and the impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ceiling repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Order

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide us with evidence that it has paid the resident total compensation of £1,350. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is made up of:
1. £550 for the 22 weeks it took to repair the ceiling after the landlord knew of the resident’s health conditions and she was not able to use her bedroom.
2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her requests for it to repair the ceiling.
3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider the failings we have identified in its record keeping and complaint handling. It should consider what improvements it needs to make to avoid similar failings in future.