Waltham Forest Council (202210177)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210177

Waltham Forest Council

14 January 2023

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 the resident’s reports of a faulty door entry system.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant, in a flat with a key fob access system.
3. The resident reported issues with the key fob not allowing access to the block on five occasions between 28 March 2021 and 4 May 2021, which a contractor resolved on each occasion. The resident made a further report that she was unable to gain access to the building using her key fob on 30 March 2022, and the issue was resolved the following day.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 20 April 2022 following her report that the building could not be accessed using the key fob. She said that the door had to be wedged open, which she thought was a safety risk, and she was concerned that she would be locked out of the building if the issue reoccurred outside of the landlord’s working hours. She wanted the landlord to have a plan to handle the issues with the door entry system and a 24-hour repair service to attend if the resident was locked out. In her escalation, the resident requested the landlord to send letters to residents outlining the procedure for handling faulty door entry systems and to display a notice with a 24-hour contact number outside the block. She also asked for additional staff training to be provided.
5. In the landlord’s final complaint response on 10 June 2022, it stated that the resident had reported she was unable to gain access to the building using her key fob on 30 March 2022, and a contractor had attended the following day and resolved the issue. It stated the issue was caused as the key fob had expired, which was an admin error. It acknowledged that the repair should have been handled as an emergency and attended within four hours, rather than 24 hours and it stated additional staff training had been provided to ensure repairs were correctly allocated. It advised the resident of the out of hours contact details. It offered the resident £100 compensation as it had incorrectly prioritised the repair and it acknowledged the time and trouble caused.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she stated the door entry system fault had recurred on several occasions, and she wanted a satisfactory solution for if the issue occurred outside of the landlord’s working hours. She also wanted the landlord to send letters to the resident outlining the procedure for handling faulty door entry systems and display a notice near the door with the emergency repair number.

Assessment and findings

7. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for repairs to door entry installations. The repair policy outlines that “faults or disrepairs that constitute a safety hazard or which make a property uninhabitable” are considered an emergency and should be responded to within 24 hours. The policy states that the landlord “has a framework and procedures in place to ensure that all requests for emergency repairs can be received and responded to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week”.
8. As the resident was unable to gain access to the property using her key fob, in line with its repairs policy, the landlord would be expected to attend within 24 hours. However, within its complaint responses the landlord provided further clarification regarding its response timeframes as it stated “individual intercom faults” were not considered as urgent, but faults affecting access to a block were deemed as urgent and should be responded to within four hours. As a result, the landlord should have ensured the repair was attended within four hours.
9. In this case the landlord has recognised that it incorrectly categorised the repair, and as a result, a contractor attended within 24 hours, instead of four hours. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
10. In its complaint response, the landlord offered £100 compensation. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £50-£100 are appropriate in cases where there was a failing by the landlord for a short duration, that may have caused distress and inconvenience. It is clear that the delayed attendance caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, however, the delay was not excessive and there was no evidence to suggest the resident was unable to gain access to her property while the repair was outstanding (which would have led to a greater impact on the resident). The landlord has therefore compensated the resident in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.
11. The landlord also demonstrated that it learned from the outcome of the complaint as further staff training had been provided to ensure repairs were responded to correctly. The landlord also noted internally that its contractor had directly employed an engineer that was available 24/7, so it did not have to rely on its subcontractor. This would likely reduce the time taken to attend any future repairs. As a result, the landlord has reasonably redressed this element of the complaint, as it has acknowledged and learned from its mistakes, and took steps to put things right by offering compensation in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.
12. The resident has raised additional concerns to this Service as she wanted the landlord to take further actions to support the residents in the block if there were further issues with the door entry system. It is important to note that there is no indication to suggest that the reported issues in 2021 were related to the more recent report in March 2022 (which could have been indicative of a systemic issue) and the Ombudsman has not received evidence to indicate the issue is ongoing. However, in light of the resident’s concerns, the landlord should appropriately address the resident’s requests.
13. The resident requested a notice to be placed outside the block door informing residents of the 24–hour repair contact details. It was reasonable that the landlord provided the resident with the relevant contact details, and signposted to where the information was available (on its website, in its repairs policy and on notice boards in the block). The landlord has therefore taken sufficient steps to make the resident aware of how to report out of hours repairs. The landlord also demonstrated that it assessed the feasibility of the resident’s request, as it stated that such notices sometimes become vandalised or removed, meaning it may not be a long-term solution to providing the out of hours contact details.
14. The landlord has advised this Service that it did not think placing notices in every entrance to advise residents of the out of hours contact number was a good use of funding. Social landlord’s have limited resources and are expected to use their budgets responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. As the landlord provided the resident with the requested contact details directly and signposted her to other places the information was available, it was reasonable that it determined additional notices were not required, as it had demonstrated it had taken sufficient alternative steps.
15. The resident also requested the landlord to send letters to all residents outlining its procedure for handling faulty door systems. Landlords would not necessarily have a set procedure for handling individual responsive repairs as it will typically rely on its appropriately qualified contractors to determine how best to handle individual repairs. Despite this, the landlord would still need to ensure it adhered to its repairs policy and response timeframes. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s request within its complaint response, so it is recommended that it confirms whether it will fulfil her request. It is important to note that it would not be obliged to do so, but in light of the resident’s concerns it may be helpful to outline the steps that would be taken to ensure any future repair issues would be promptly resolved.
16. Overall, the landlord demonstrated that it has learned from the outcome of the complaint, took steps to improve its service and it has offered reasonable redress for the failings identified. It has appropriately responded to the resident’s request for the out of hours contact number to be posted outside the block, however, it should confirm its position regarding providing residents with a letter outlining its procedure for handling faulty door systems.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty door entry system satisfactorily.

Recommendations

18. If it has not done so already, it is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £100 compensation, as offered in its stage two response.
19. It is recommended that the landlord confirms to the resident whether it will send a letter to the residents in the block regarding the procedure for handling faulty door systems.