Waltham Forest Council (202410478)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410478

Waltham Forest Council

28 November 2024

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 response to the resident’s report that the communal door lock had been changed to one with a latch, which had led to residents latching the door open.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

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’s block has 2 communal doors with locks. One of the doors is at the front of the block and is the main entrance to the block. The other communal door is at the back of the block and leads to a communal area at the rear of the block.
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 to ring him before sending any written communication. The landlord has advised this Service that it has additional information on its system that there is a need for it to communicate clearly, get back to the resident promptly, carry out tasks within agreed timescales and keep him informed if there are delays.
On 30 May 2024, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord to advise that other residents or their children had been latching the communal front door open during the previous weekend. The resident asked why the lock had been changed from one without a latch facility to one with a latch. He stated that latching the door open was leading to anti-social behaviour (ASB).
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 13 June 2024 and stated that it had raised an order on 1 February 2024 because the communal doors to the resident’s block were swollen and were not shutting properly. The landlord confirmed that an operative attended on 7 February 2024 and overhauled the communal doors. The landlord also mentioned a job that it had raised on 1 March 2024 to remove tape from the front communal door, which had been placed there to warn residents about wet cement on the ground in front of the door.
The landlord did not uphold the complaint on the basis that communal doors may have to be repaired or renewed for various reasons due to wear and tear or misuse. Therefore, it did not consider changes to the communal doors or locks were legitimate grounds for complaint.
On 30 July 2024, the resident contacted this Service to say he was dissatisfied with the stage one reply and he wanted to request a stage 2 review because he said the landlord had not explained when or why the lock had been changed.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 4 September 2024 and explained that it had checked the lock on 14 June 2024 and had found it to be “in perfect working order”. The landlord also noted that the lock did not look particularly new. The landlord added that it had no record of the lock being changed recently and it did not believe the condition of the door was facilitating or enabling ASB.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 September 2024 and said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because the locks were changed from one that could not be latched open to one that could be. He said he considered this to be important because prior to the locks being changed to the non-latchable type, there had been problems with ASB. The resident stated that he wanted the latches removed from the locks.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that the communal door lock had been changed to one with a latch

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The structure includes walls, ceilings and the foundations, staircases, bannisters, internal and external plasterwork. The exterior is the outside of the building, including external walls and the roof. It includes drains, guttering and external pipes.
Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for maintaining internal communal areas, including communal doors and door entry installations.
The landlord’s website identifies 3 timescales for carrying out repairs, depending on their urgency:
1. Critical emergency repairs – the landlord will carry out the repair or make safe within 4 hours.
2. Essential emergency repairs – the landlord will carry out the repair or make safe within 24 hours.
3. Routine repairs – the landlord will complete the repair within 28 days. This category includes communal repairs.
Information provided to this Service for the investigation of a previous complaint made by the resident (reference 202104070) shows that an operative changed the lock cases on the front and rear communal doors to the resident’s block on 2 March 2021. The job notes stated that the operative had replaced the lock cases so they no longer had ‘snibs’ that had previously allowed the locks to be latched open.
The resident submitted a complaint on 30 May 2024 that other residents or their children had been latching open the communal front door of the block during the previous weekend. He asked the landlord to explain when and why the locks had been changed to ones that could be latched open. The resident said that he wanted the responsible tenant to be evicted or to be warned. He requested the landlord to remove the latches on the locks as this was causing ASB.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 13 June 2024 and included details of 2 works orders that had been raised during 2024. The orders were related to the communal doors for the resident’s block. Neither of the works orders involved changing the locks. In responding to the resident’s complaint that the locks had been changed, it was reasonable that the landlord had provided details of jobs that it had raised in relation to the communal doors.
The landlord also explained in its stage one reply that communal doors and locks may require repair or renewal due to wear and tear or misuse. The landlord did not uphold the complaint as it had no evidence of disrepair to the communal doors.
The evidence seen by the Ombudsman supports the landlord’s statement that there was no disrepair to the communal doors. For example, the landlord has provided copies of the estate inspection records for inspections carried out in February, April, June and August 2024 showing that the communal entrance door was secure and fully functional. Furthermore, the landlord stated in its stage 2 reply on 4 September 2024 that it had inspected the communal door and lock on 14 June 2024 and both were found to be “in perfect working order”. The landlord had therefore met its obligations in terms of keeping the communal doors and locks in good repair and had followed good practice by carrying out regular inspections to ensure there were no issues with the communal doors.
It is a shortcoming on the landlord’s part, however, that it has no record of changing the locks on the communal doors to those with latches. As previously stated, the records seen by the Ombudsman show that the locks were changed on 2 March 2021 to a type that did not have snibs and therefore could not be latched. The landlord has confirmed that the current locks can be latched and therefore the evidence indicates that the locks were changed at some point. However, even if the locks were changed, the Ombudsman has not identified any failing by the landlord in its duty to keep the communal doors and the locks in good repair.
The resident’s main complaint is that the landlord should not have changed the locks to ones that could be latched. However, as the locks and doors were fully functional, the Ombudsman is unable to make a finding on the appropriateness of the locks that were fitted as it does not have the expertise to do this. Furthermore, the landlord would be entitled to rely on the expertise of its contractor in deciding on the type of locks to be fitted. It therefore follows that the Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to fit a particular type of lock to the communal door.
The Ombudsman has therefore found there was no maladministration in terms of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint that the communal door lock was changed to one with a latch. However, the view of this Service is that the landlord should have acted at the time on the resident’s concern that residents or their children were leaving the communal front door latched open.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord followed this up with the residents of the block at the time. This was again a shortcoming on the landlord’s part as the resident was clearly concerned that this would compromise the security of the block by allowing non-residents to enter the block.
However, the landlord advised this Service that following an inspection on 26 November 2024, the landlord found the communal door was open due to the latch being on. The landlord therefore wrote to all residents in the block on 26 November 2024 reminding them that they should keep the block secure by ensuring the door is closed and is not left open on the latch or wedged open. The letter reminded residents of their obligations under the tenancy agreement, which states: “You must not disable the locking mechanism, jam or wedge open or otherwise interfere with any communal or fire safety or controlled entry doors”.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process and the landlord’s complaints policy states:
1. It will log and acknowledge all stage one complaints upon receipt and will contact the resident within 48 hours.
2. It will respond in writing to all stage one complaints within 10 workings days of the complaint being logged.
3. If the landlord is unable to respond within 10 working days, it will inform the resident as soon as possible if an extension is required and give the reason(s) why. Any extension will extend to no later than an additional 10 working days from the original deadline.
4. If the complaint has not been resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one, they can ask the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
5. The landlord will respond to the resident within 20 working days of the acknowledgement of the stage 2 complaint.
6. If, for any reason, the landlord needs more than 20 working days to respond to the complaint, it will explain why and inform the resident of the expected timescale for its response. Any extension will be no longer than 20 working days unless there is a good reason, which will be explained to the resident.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on 30 May 2024 regarding the communal door locks. The landlord advised the resident on 31 May 2024 that the matter would be dealt with as a service request and would be passed to the Tenancy Officer to action. This was understandable as the resident had stated on the complaints form that he had not raised the issue previously. Nevertheless, the landlord sent a stage one reply to the resident on 13 June 2024, which was 10 working days after receiving the complaint. The landlord had therefore replied within an appropriate timescale, which was in line with its complaints policy.
The resident contacted this Service on 30 July 2024 to say he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one reply and wanted to proceed to stage 2. The Ombudsman therefore wrote to the landlord on the same day and requested it to investigate the complaint and respond at stage 2 of its process.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 4 September 2024, which was 26 working days after the landlord received the stage 2 complaint. Although this was longer than its published 20 working day timescale, the landlord had written to this Service on 30 August 2024 and 3 September 2024 to request extensions of time. In each case, the landlord explained the reason for the extension and gave a revised deadline. The landlord had therefore followed its complaints policy by advising the resident (via this Service) about the need for an extension of time. The intention was that the Ombudsman would convey the details about the extension of time to the resident.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord dealt with the complaints appropriately in accordance with its complaints policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report that the communal door lock had been changed to one with a latch, which had led to residents latching the door open.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.