London Borough of Waltham Forest (202436925)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202436925

Waltham Forest Council

22 May 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water running from the cistern into the toilet bowl, including his reports that repairs were not initially carried out.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the advice he was given by the landlord.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a one-bedroomed flat within a block containing 6 flats.
The resident has vulnerabilities resulting from being autistic; this means that he requires communications to be ‘autism-friendly’. The resident has explained that this means no complex written communications and he has requested the landlord and this Service ring him before sending any written communication.
On 16 December 2024, the resident reported that water was running from the cistern into the toilet bowl and as a result the cistern was not filling up. The landlord raised an order on the same day to repair the reported problem with the toilet cistern.
The resident contacted us on 19 December 2024 to say he was unhappy that the landlord had not treated the reported defect with the cistern as an emergency. He said he was also unhappy that the landlord’s staff member had initially advised him to use a bucket (to flush the toilet) without checking he had a bucket available. He advised us that he was concerned about the impact on his water bill if the water continued to run from the cistern into the toilet bowl. He said that the outcomes he wanted were for the toilet to be repaired as soon as possible and for the landlord to compensate him for his increased water bill. We wrote to the landlord on the same day and asked it to log a stage 1 complaint.
On 24 December 2024, 2 operatives attended the property and the operatives’ notes state that a repair was carried out by replacing a washer.
The landlord sent a stage 1 reply on 3 January 2025 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed it had raised an order on 16 December 2024 to repair the cistern and said the issue had been resolved on 24 December 2024. It added that the operative had advised the resident how to isolate the valve if the same problem reoccurred.
2. The landlord explained that a leak was only considered to be an emergency if it was a risk to health and safety or was an uncontainable leak.
3. It said that the advice given to the resident for him to use a bucket to flush the toilet was standard advice it gave in such situations.
4. The landlord said it had not found any evidence of service failure and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
The resident spoke to us on 8 January 2025 and said:
1. The problem with the toilet was intermittent and it appeared to have resolved itself at the time of the operative’s visit on 24 December 2024. He said that the operative had not carried out any repairs when he attended.
2. He said the operative agreed to speak to his manager about potentially renewing the bathroom suite.
3. He said there had been ongoing problems in the bathroom for the past 3 years.
4. He said that he had seen the operative on the estate on 24 December 2024 leaving a neighbour’s property and the operative had driven away from the estate. The resident said he had phoned the landlord to question why the operative was leaving the estate without attending to his repair. The resident said he was told by the landlord’s staff that the repair would have to be rebooked.
5. The resident said the operative had then attended his property shortly after he had called the landlord.
6. The resident said he was unhappy the landlord’s staff member had advised him to use a bucket without checking that he had a bucket available.
7. The resident confirmed he wanted the landlord to escalate his complaint because he said there were inaccuracies in the stage 1 reply.
We wrote to the landlord on 8 January 2025 and asked it to log a stage 2 complaint. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 6 February 2025 in which it stated the following:
1. Although the operative had said he repaired the toilet on 24 December 2024, the resident had made a subsequent report of the same issue and the contractor attended on 23 January 2025 to complete a repair. The operative fitted a new washer to the syphon, which resolved the issue.
2. The landlord accepted that there had been a service failure because the repair carried out in December 2024 had failed and therefore it had been necessary to recall the contractor.
3. It confirmed it had investigated the repair history for the property dating back to 2020 and had concluded that the jobs did not indicate there was extensive disrepair in the bathroom.
4. It noted that a job had been raised in 2020 because the cistern was filling up and leaking into the toilet pan. However, as the time between the 2020 job and the one raised in December 2024 was almost 5 years, the landlord said it did not suggest the bathroom was beyond repair.
5. The landlord confirmed that its stock condition data showed the bathroom was due for renewal in 2038. It apologised that the operative had misinformed the resident about a potential renewal of the bathroom suite.
6. It said it was unable to investigate the resident’s complaint that the operative had arrived late as this had not been part of his stage 1 complaint.
7. It said that the ‘do not visit alone’ alert on its system had affected the time taken for the contractor to attend.
8. The landlord said the advice from its staff that the resident should use a bucket to flush the toilet was reasonable as the resident could have assumed he could use any suitable container, such as a pot or bowl, if he did not have a bucket.
9. The landlord offered compensation of £200, which was comprised of:
  1. £25 for the delays (calculated at a rate of £25 per month).
  2. £150 for inconvenience and increased water costs.
  3. £25 for the lack of progress which necessitated a further complaint.
The resident contacted us on 13 February 2025 and confirmed he wanted us to investigate his complaint as there were delays and poor handling of the repair. He said he was unhappy that the landlord would be replacing the bathroom suite in 2038 as the boxing near the wash basin, the bath taps and the bath panel all currently needed replacing. He said that the landlord would have to remove the wash basin to replace the boxing.
The resident advised us on 24 April 2025 that he was concerned about the advice he had been given to use a bucket and not treating the initial call with the required urgency. However, he said he was mainly concerned that the operative had reported carrying out repairs on 24 December 2024 when this had not been the case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident advised us on 13 February 2025 about his concerns that the landlord was not intending to replace his bathroom suite until 2038. He added that there were various repairs outstanding, including boxing and repairs to the bath taps and panel. He then advised us on 24 April 2025 that he had been reporting disrepair in his bathroom for a number of years.
Although the landlord provided some information about these matters in its stage 2 reply, these issues were not part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Furthermore, they were not included in the complaint definitions outlined in either the landlord’s stage 1 or stage 2 replies. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. Therefore, we have not investigated the following matters because we do not consider it fair and reasonable to do so:
1. The landlord’s decision not to replace the bathroom suite until 2038.
2. The reported outstanding repairs to the boxing, the bath taps and the panel.
3. The resident’s reports of disrepair to the bathroom.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water running from the cistern into the toilet bowl, including his reports that repairs were not initially carried out

The landlord’s website states that it has the following 3 timescales for carrying out repairs:
1. Critical emergency repairs – the landlord aims to attend to and repair or make safe critical emergency repairs within 4 hours.
2. Essential emergency repairs – the landlord aims to repair or make safe essential emergency repairs within 24 hours or by the end of the next working day.
3. Routine (non-emergency repairs) – the landlord aims to complete all other types of repairs, including communal repairs within 14 to 28 days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 December 2024 to report that water was running from the toilet cistern into the bowl and therefore the cistern was not filling up. The landlord raised a repair order on the same day, which was appropriate. The repair order was given a routine priority and a deadline of 14 calendar days to complete the work. The contractor attended on 24 December 2024 to carry out repairs, which was 8 calendar days after the resident reported the problem. The landlord’s contractor therefore responded within an appropriate timescale for a routine repair.
Part of the resident’s complaint, however, was that the repair should have been raised as an emergency. In its stage 2 reply, the landlord stated: “Emergency repairs are repairs that are necessary to prevent serious damage to your building, danger to health and safety or risk of serious loss or damage to your property”. Based on the information it had received at the time, the landlord decided that the reported defect should be categorised as a routine job, with a 14-day target. The landlord’s records show that it took into account that the cistern was partially filling up, that is it had not failed completely. Furthermore, it took into account that the resident had been given advice to enable him to temporarily flush the toilet.
We do not have details of exactly what the resident said to the landlord when he reported the repair. However, based on the description of the repair noted on the landlord’s system and the landlord’s criteria for emergency repairs, our view is that it was reasonable for the landlord to log the repair as a routine job because:
1. The evidence indicates that the water was flowing from the cistern into the toilet bowl and was not affecting any other parts of the property or causing serious damage.
2. The landlord had not noted any danger to health and safety or risk of loss or damage to the resident’s property on the job ticket.
3. The cistern was partially filling and therefore had not failed completely.
4. Within the range of timescales for routine repairs (14 to 28 days), the landlord had chosen to complete the repair within 14 days, which is the shortest timescale for routine jobs.
The resident has advised us that the contractor did not carry out any repairs on 24 December 2024. However, the operative’s notes stated that he had repaired the leak by replacing the washer. The landlord’s records include a photo of the inside of the cistern which the operative said was taken while he was at the property on 24 December 2024.
In situations where there are conflicting accounts about events, we rely on evidence such as contemporaneous notes to reach conclusions. In this case, the operative’s notes say that he replaced the washer and we have not seen any notes or correspondence produced on or immediately after 24 December 2024 suggesting the work was not done. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence showing that the operative did not change the washer, our view is that it was reasonable for the landlord to accept the operative’s report that he had carried out the work.
The resident advised us in his stage 2 complaint on 8 January 2025 that he was unhappy because he saw the operative leaving the estate on 24 December 2024 after having worked on a neighbour’s property. The resident said the operative only returned to carry out the repair in his property after the resident had phoned the landlord. The landlord has disputed the resident’s assertion and advised us that there was a slight delay in carrying out the repair because it needed 2 operatives to visit the property.
We have seen insufficient evidence to confirm either way whether or not the operative had intended to leave the area on 24 December 2024 without carrying out the repair to the resident’s property. Therefore, as an independent arbiter we are unable to determine whether the contractor only attended because of the resident’s phone call as he asserts. However, the resident informed us that the operative attended his property about 20 minutes later than the appointed time. Therefore, this was a shortcoming on the part of the contractor/landlord as the resident was not told beforehand that the operative would be late.
The resident contacted us on 8 January 2025 to report there was still an intermittent fault with the toilet. We therefore wrote to the landlord on the same day and asked it to log a stage 2 complaint. The landlord explained in its stage 2 reply that it had recalled the contractor to the property because the resident had reported there was still an issue with the toilet. The landlord’s records state that the repair was completed on 23 January 2025. This was 15 calendar days after the landlord had been notified of the ongoing problem on 8 January 2025 and over a month after the resident had first reported the problem on 16 December 2024.
Although the landlord was entitled to rely on the contractor’s report that it had resolved the issue on 24 December 2024, it was unreasonable that it then took a further 15 days to resolve the problem after being advised it was still ongoing on 8 January 2025. The resident had been inconvenienced by having to report the repair again and had continued to experience an intermittent fault with his toilet for a further period after the contractor’s attendance on 24 December 2024.
As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had checked its repair records and found there had been a similar problem reported with the toilet in 2020. However, it concluded that as the reports were almost 5 years apart this did not suggest the bathroom was beyond repair. In our view, it was reasonable for the landlord to have checked its records to see if there had been similar reports of problems with the toilet to help identify any underlying issues. Having checked its records, it was also reasonable in our view for the landlord to conclude that 2 similar reports over a 5-year period did not suggest an underlying issue or that the toilet was beyond repair.
Overall, the evidence shows that the contractor did not resolve the problem with the toilet on the first visit and then did not give sufficient urgency to carrying out the repair when it recalled the contractor. During this time, the resident’s toilet was not functioning correctly and therefore he had to contact us again on 8 January 2025, which involved further time and trouble for the resident.
In it’s stage 2 reply, the landlord accepted there had been a service failure because the contractor had to be recalled in January 2025 to repair the reported problem with the toilet. It offered compensation of £200 to cover the delay in resolving the problem with the toilet, the inconvenience this caused, the additional water costs experienced by the resident and the lack of progress which necessitated the resident’s complaint.
The landlord had, in our view, acted fairly by:
1. Acknowledging its failure in resolving the problem on its first visit.
2. Recognising that the resident would experience additional water costs because water was running intermittently from the cistern into the toilet pan.
3. Checking its historic repair records to see if there might be an underlying issue with the toilet.
The landlord had sought to put things right by apologising and offering compensation after it had resolved the problem. The amount offered was in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and caused distress and inconvenience. Having considered the landlord’s offer of compensation, our view is that it made a proportionate and fair offer to put things right. Therefore, we have found that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress. Our finding takes into account the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident and the other circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the advice he was given by the landlord

During the phone call with the landlord on 16 December 2024, the resident was advised to use a bucket when he reported that the toilet cistern was not filling up and was leaking into the pan. Our understanding is that the intention behind the landlord’s advice was to provide him with information about a temporary, alternative way to flush the toilet by pouring water into the toilet bowl.
We would expect a landlord to offer practical advice to help residents cope with any problems while they are waiting for a repair to be carried out. In this case, the resident had explained that the toilet was not flushing correctly because the cistern was not filling up. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord’s staff to offer advice to the resident about an alternative way he could flush the toilet while waiting for the repair to be carried out.
The advice given was to pour a bucket of water into the bowl to flush away any effluence from the toilet pan. The resident has said the landlord did not check with him whether he had a bucket available. Having considered this point, our view is that if the resident did not have a bucket, it was reasonable for the landlord’s staff to expect him to mention this during the conversation. Furthermore, it was reasonable, in our view, for its staff to expect the resident to ask for clarification about the advice if he was unclear about how a bucket of water could be used to flush the toilet.
The contractor’s notes state that during his visit on 24 December 2024, the contractor advised the resident how to isolate the system in the event that the cistern leaked into the toilet bowl again. Our understanding is that by isolating the system, the resident would be able to prevent water leaking from the cistern into the toilet bowl. It was reasonable for the contractor to advise the resident how to isolate the system if the problem reoccurred as this would stop the water running from the cistern and would therefore reduce the impact on the resident’s water bill.
Overall, we have found that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about the advice he had been given because:
1. The landlord gave practical advice on how the resident could temporarily flush the toilet while waiting for the repair to be carried out.
2. The resident had an opportunity to ask the landlord for further advice or clarification if he did not have a bucket available or was uncertain of how this could be used as a temporary measure.
3. The contractor gave advice to the resident about isolating the system should the problem reoccur.
4. The landlord considered the resident’s concerns about the advice and set out its findings in its stage 2 reply.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of water running from the cistern into the toilet bowl, including his reports that repairs were not initially carried out.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the advice he was given by the landlord.

Recommendation

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £200 offered in its stage 2 reply if this has not already been paid.