We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Waltham Forest (202445086)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445086

London Borough of Waltham Forest

28 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the door entry system.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a block with a communal front door. The resident is a secure tenant and he has lived in the property since 2008. The landlord is a council.
  2. The communal front door uses fob entry. The door opens automatically when unlocked by the fob. This was fitted as a reasonable adjustment so disabled residents did not have to manually push the door. The resident uses a wheelchair and is registered disabled.
  3. The resident’s neighbour reported to the landlord that the door was not working on 26 July 2024 as it would not open automatically. The repair was completed on 8 August 2024.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 9 September 2024. He said the repair took too long. He said it was difficult as a wheelchair user to manually open the door during the time the door was broken. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 22 September 2024 it said there was no service failure. It detailed its communication with the resident during the repair period.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 October 2024 and the landlord provided its written response on 10 January 2025. It did not uphold the complaint and detailed its efforts to repair the door. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in issuing the stage 2 response.
  6. The resident referred the complaint to us as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He wants the landlord to admit it was wrong and the repair took too long. He does not believe the landlord understands the impact a broken door has on him as a disabled resident.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the door entry system

  1. The contractor attended on 28 July 2024, 2 days after the issue was reported. This was within the landlord’s timescale of 3 days as per its repairs policy. It did not meet the criteria for an emergency repair as the door still opened manually. After the first attendance there is no set timescale in the policy for when an issue should be repaired. The policy recognises this can be dependent on specialist works or replacement parts.
  2. To repair the door the contractor had to trace the fault and wait for new parts. Specialist installation was required which took some time to secure. Repair records and internal landlord communication showed best efforts to do this.
  3. The first contact between the resident and the landlord was on 6 August 2024 (as a neighbour had initially reported the repair). The resident asked why the door had not been fixed and the landlord responded the following day with a detailed update from the contractor. This was responsive and appropriate.
  4. When the repair was completed on 8 August 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to advise him of this. This was positive and ensured he was kept updated. The landlord provided him with the contractor’s telephone number in case there were any further issues. This was helpful and solution focussed.
  5. On 8 August 2024 the resident told the landlord the green indicator light was showing on his handset (linked to the door entry system) in the property. The landlord was responsive in replying the following day. It said this was an “additional reassurance indicator” that would be looked at. The landlord told the resident the door was secure and the green light was a minor connection issue. 
  6. The resident twice chased the issue of the green light being on. On both occasions the landlord responded quickly with an update and reassurance it was in progress. It informed the resident the issue was tracked to another flat and numerous access attempts had been unsuccessful. It was fixed on 26 September 2024 when the contractor could gain access. The green light being on all residents’ handsets had no bearing on the effectiveness or security of the door. It was a minor cable connection fault that had no detrimental impact on residents. The landlord acted reasonably by repairing the fault as soon as it could in the circumstances. It was open and honest with the resident about the progress of repairs.
  7. The resident was unhappy that, during the period the door was not working, he struggled to open it manually in his wheelchair. This was understandably distressing. The resident believed the landlord should have made allowances for this. The landlord asked the contractor what options could have been used in these circumstances. The contractor advised the only remedy would have been physically tying the door back, which would leave the door permanently open. The landlord explained this to the resident.
  8. The landlord said residents had raised concerns about security when it had previously tied the door open. It also said it had not received a request to permanently have the door open during this repair period. The landlord was reasonable in its handling of this. While unfortunate, there was nothing further it could do in the circumstances.
  9. The landlord repaired the door as soon as it could. It kept the resident updated and was understanding of the impact on him through its communication. There was no maladministration in how the landlord handled repairs to the door entry system.

Complaint handling

  1. The stage 1 response was issued within the landlord’s 10 working day target timescale. The response was detailed and informative. It explained the efforts made to repair the door and listed its communication with the resident. It was empathetic to how important the automatic door was to the resident.
  2. The stage 2 response was also thorough and explained the stages of the repair process. It exceeded the landlord’s target timescale of being provided within 20 working days. The written response was given almost 3 months after the escalation request. While not in line with policy, this did not impact the substantive issue as the repair had already been completed.
  3. The landlord acknowledged this service failure with an offer of £50 compensation. This was appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance. The landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its complaints handling. It is recommended it pays the resident the £50 offered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the door entry system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b the landlord offered reasonable redress regarding the associated complaint.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation offered at stage 2. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid.