London Borough of Waltham Forest (202510277)

Background

1. The property is a flat in a purpose-built block. We previously investigated the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of a leak at the property. This case was determined in December 2024. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s communication with him following our decision.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s communication regarding a leak at the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s communication regarding the leak at the property.
5. The landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s communication regarding a leak at the property.

6. The landlord apologised for errors in its communication with the resident following the Ombudsman’s previous determination on similar issues. It awarded compensation in recognition of this. However, there was no evidence it followed through on its commitment, in its stage 2 complaint response, to provide an update or timeframe to the resident within 10 days.

The associated complaint

7. The landlord apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. It awarded compensation to the resident in recognition of the delays.

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.

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.

8. The resident’s complaint was about the communication he received from the landlord regarding the leaks at his property following our determination of his case in December 2024. This investigation has therefore focused on the period from December 2024. However, at the time this report, the repair issues in the case remain outstanding. For fairness, we have increased the scope of the investigation to the present day to fully consider the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the ongoing repairs at the property.
9. The resident told us that the issued with leaks at his property have caused further issues such as damp and mould and electrical faults. These are issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There was no evidence the resident raised the complaint about damp and mould or electrical issues within this complaint. Therefore, we have no power to investigate. We are aware the resident has raised a separate complaint with the landlord regarding these issues which the landlord is responding to.
10. For context, the landlord complied with the orders on the previous case within the timescales specified and the case was closed in January 2025. We recommended the landlord provided the resident with an action plan with timeframes for fully resolving all leaks. However, our recommendations are not legally binding, and the landlord is not under any obligation to follow them.
11. Throughout January 2025, the landlord and resident communicated via email regarding a joint inspection at the property. The evidence showed that the landlord was proactive in trying to arrange times and dates that were convenient for the resident which was positive.
12. We did not see evidence of any direct communication between the landlord and resident in February 2025. The landlord referred to communication between the resident and its contractor in February 2025. However, we have not seen evidence of this. It was unclear whether the resident was chasing the landlord for updates during February 2025. However, given the complexities of the case and the amount of time the repairs were taking, we would expect the landlord to provide the resident with regular updates. There was no evidence it did this, which was a failing.
13. On 4 March 2025 the resident asked the landlord for an update. We have not seen any evidence the landlord responded to this request. This was a further failing in its communication which would have caused time and trouble to the resident.
14. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord told the resident it was unable to provide an action plan or timeframe for the works due to the complex nature of the case and the number of contractors involved. This was reasonable. However, the landlord should have confirmed a timeframe with the resident to provide regular updates and there was no evidence it did this.
15. In its stage 2 response, the landlord also recommended the repairs team contact the resident “with an update on likely completion timeframes for the outstanding works within 10 working days”. There was no evidence it did this and this was a further failing which could have damaged the landlord – tenant relationship as it did not do something it said it would do. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience this caused him, provide an update on the current situation and agree a timetable for providing regular updates until the work is completed.
16. The resident told us that his health had been affected by the issues within his complaint. We acknowledge this has been a difficult time for him. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
17. We have considered whether the landlord’s offer of compensation for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble encountered by the resident was appropriate. In doing so, we refer to our Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out our approach to compensation. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for its errors in communicating with the resident about the repairs at his property. This offer was in line with our remedies guidance which states that in cases where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact, £100-£600 may be appropriate.
18. Therefore, the landlord’s offer is in line with what the Ombudsman would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer. However, the landlord should have provided an update within 10 working days, as agreed. Because it did not do this, there was service failure in the landlord’s communication about the leak.

19. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It’s policy states it will issue a full response within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and within 20 working days for complaints at stage 2. These timescales align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices.
20. The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response 5 working days outside of its complaints policy timescales and its stage 2 response 13 days outside of its timescales. These were failings because the landlord was not compliant with its complaints policy and the resident would have encountered time and trouble chasing the landlord for a response. However, the delays were not excessive.
21. The landlord awarded £25 compensation at stage 1 and £25 at stage 2 for the delays. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation for complaint handling is in line with our remedies guidance as referenced above. It suggests awards in this range where a resident has been affected by a landlord’s errors but the error may have been minor or of short duration.
22. In summary, the award of £50 compensation for the complaint handling delays at stage 1 and 2 of the landlord’s complaints process proportionately reflects the impact of the delays on the resident. Therefore, we consider this to be reasonable redress for complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The records the landlord provided were adequate for us to complete our investigation

Communication

24. The landlord acknowledged that it did not take a proactive approach when communicating with the resident following our previous determination. Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights highlights the importance of resident-focused and proactive communication. Unless it has done so already, the landlord could review its communication practices against the recommendations in that report to ensure it addresses similar issues proactively in the future, rather than waiting for residents to raise concerns.