London Borough of Waltham Forest (202419394)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419394

London Borough of Waltham Forest

26 August 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for central heating pipes to be boxed in.
2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident lives at the property with his two children.
In October 2020 the resident raised concerns with the landlord after he reported that his son had burned himself on an exposed central heating pipe. The landlord’s repair records show a repair was raised to attend and make safe. Although it appears the landlord decided not to take any action following this.
The landlord has said the resident complained and asked for the pipes to be boxed in on 3 July 2024. The resident has not disputed this. In his complaint the resident said:
1. The pipework had been exposed since the start of his tenancy.
2. The pipes were dangerous, and his son burned himself on a pipe.
3. The landlord had ignored this and done nothing about it.
4. He could not invite other children to his home as the pipes were a health and safety issue.
On 17 July 2024 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. Its buildings management agent (MA), attended in October 2020 and advised the resident that heating pipes are not generally boxed in for health and safety reasons and to ensure the sound functioning of the heating system.
2. Given the time that had passed since the last visit, it had arranged for the MA to look into the resident’s concerns again.
3. A visit had been booked for 10 July 2024, which did not go ahead as the MA were not given access to the property. This was rearranged for 18 July 2024.
On 18 July 2024 the MA completed its visit. It told the resident that pipework was not usually boxed in. However, to resolve the resident’s concerns the MA reduced the heating flow temperature which would reduce the temperature of the pipes.
The landlord has said the resident escalated his complaint on 18 July 2024. The resident has not disputed this. In his escalation the resident said:
1. When he first reported the exposed pipes, he was told nothing would be done about it.
2. The landlord had not provided proof the pipes were not previously boxed in, and if they had been, why this had been removed.
3. It seemed the landlord had taken no accountability in its response to his complaint.
On 15 August 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said:
1. It had reviewed the MA’s records from its visit on 18 July 2024 and it noted that the MA had advised pipework was not usually boxed in.
2. It noted the MA took action to remedy the resident’s concerns by reducing the heating flow temperature, and it said this would reduce the temperature of the pipes.
3. It had reviewed its stage 1 response and found this had been sent within its 10 working day deadline.
4. It did not identify any failures or award any compensation.
The resident brought his complaint to this Service in August 2024. In September 2024 the landlord replaced the clips securing the pipework to the wall, as these had broken.

Assessment and findings

Scope

Part of the resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that his son burned himself on an area of exposed pipe in October 2020. Due to the time that has passed we are unable to investigate this historical issue. However, we may refer to it for context.

Assessment

Having carefully considered the evidence and circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration by the landlord. We have made no orders or recommendations. The reasons for this outcome are set out below.

The exposed pipes

The landlord’s repair policy sets out what repairs the landlord is responsible for completing. This includes maintaining the structure of the home, as well as the installations for gas, electricity, water and sanitation. This includes maintaining radiators and water pipes.
We would expect a landlord to carry out repairs that it is required to complete under its repair policy. However, there is no provision in the landlord’s repair policy for it to box in the exposed pipework. And we have not been provided evidence to show such work needs to be completed by the landlord as part of its obligation to maintain the installations.
We would expect the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns that the exposed pipes are a hazard or a health and safety risk. In this case, it seems the resident raised concerns about the exposed pipes in October 2020 and again on 3 July 2024. As mentioned above, we are unable to investigate what happened in October 2020. However, after receiving the complaint on 3 July 2024 the landlord arranged for an inspection to be completed on 10 July 2024 and when this did not go ahead a subsequent visit was completed on 18 July 2024.
The landlord’s repair policy says it will respond to incidents that do not fall within the emergency or urgent repair categories within 21 calendar days. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in 15 days. To resolve the resident’s concerns the landlord reduced the heating flow temperature to 50 degrees Celsius.
The landlord has said reducing the heating flow temperature will naturally reduce the temperature of the exposed pipes. It has also said the pipework and radiator will be the same temperature, so boxing in the pipework would not reduce the risk as the radiator itself would still be exposed. What the landlord has said does not seem unfair or unreasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord has also told this service that it will box in pipework in exceptional circumstances, such as where a resident has a vulnerability which increases their likelihood of burning themselves. But the landlord has said such workwould normally be done following an occupational therapy assessment and recommendation. And it has said this work would normally be funded by a Disabled Facilities Grant.
In this case, we have seen no evidence that the resident or his children have a vulnerability which puts them at an increased risk of burning themselves. So, in the circumstances, the landlord has not acted unfairly or unreasonably by not treating the resident’s case as an exceptional circumstance.
The resident has said he believes the pipework was previously boxed in and he has complained that the landlord has not provided evidence to show this was not the case. In its stage 2 response the landlord said there was paint residue on the pipework, which suggested it was not boxed in when the property was last decorated. It also said it has seen no evidence to show the pipework has been previously boxed in.
We have not been provided sufficient evidence to show the exposed pipes were previously boxed in. Even if we had been provided such evidence, it is unlikely this would change the outcome of this case, as the landlord’s repair obligations would remain the same.
Overall, the landlord is not required to box in the pipes under its repairs policy. So, it is not unreasonable that it did not complete this work. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about health and safety and took steps to resolve these within its repair deadline. This is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
With the above in mind, the Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for central heating pipes to be boxed in.

The complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced to improve complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in line with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s complaints handling policy sets out timescales for when complaints must be recorded, acknowledged and responded to at both stage 1 and stage 2. It says, in part, that:
1. At stage 1 the landlord will acknowledge the complaint on receipt and contact the resident within 48 hours.
2. At stage 1 the landlord will respond to the complaint within 10 working days. Unless an extension is needed.
3. At stage 2 the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days.
4. At stage 2 the landlord will respond to the complaint within 20 working days. Unless an extension is needed.
The Code says complaints at stage 1 and 2 must be acknowledged, defined and logged within 5 working days of the complaint or escalation being received. The Code sets out the same deadline for responses as the landlord’s policy at both stages.
The evidence provided shows the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 2 within the required timescales. The evidence does not show the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at either stage. This is not compliant with the Code and demonstrates poor communication. However, it seems the landlord understood and addressed the resident’s concerns at stage 1 and 2 in the required timescales. So, this does not appear to have impacted the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint.
The landlord has told this service that residents are free to carry out works and improvements to their own properties, and the landlord has said it would not refuse any unreasonable request from the resident if he wished to carry out the works himself. While not a failure, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been helpful if the landlord had explained this to the resident in its complaint responses. This would have left the resident better informed about his options.
With the above in mind, the Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for the central heating pipes to be boxed in.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.