City of Westminster Council (202323261)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323261

Westminster City Council

20 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a personal injury due to a ruptured post surgery incision, sustained moving to temporary accommodation.
2. Reports of required repairs, damp, and mould.
3. Move to temporary accommodation.
4. Reports of a delay moving to permanent alternative accommodation.
5. Associated complaint.

Background

At the time of the resident’s complaint, she was a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom flat. She moved to temporary accommodation during repair work and subsequently moved to an alternative 1-bedroom property. The landlord, a local council, owned both properties and is aware of the resident’s health concerns and vulnerabilities.
The resident complained to the landlord on 31 July 2023. She said she had been experiencing black mould in her flat since moving there in 2020. She explained the effect this was having on her and her baby’s health and detailed a list of required repairs. She said it had put her at risk placing her in an uninhabitable hotel and asked it to move her to permanent alternative accommodation. She also asked it to compensate her for the poor experience.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 5 October 2023. It set out the repairs it had completed in 2020 and 2022 and said there had been occasions where the resident had denied access which delayed work. It had inspected her home in July 2023 and listed multiple repairs which required attention but said it found no evidence of mould in the property. It responded to her concerns about the temporary accommodation, which it provided while she waited for a management transfer. It apologised for its late stage 1 response and offered £60 compensation.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint the same day. She said it should compensate her for the amount of time she had to live in uninhabitable conditions.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 15 December 2023. It repeated its stage 1 response and the actions it had taken. It said that its contractors attended within the required timescales and made every effort to complete repairs. It referred to an injury which the resident said she sustained moving between hotels. It apologised that it did not offer additional support at the time and explained how she could make a claim via its public liability insurance.
The landlord apologised that the resident had been unable to move to the new property on the original date but said it had rearranged this for the following day. However, she said she would make her own arrangements and it agreed to reimburse her for any expenses. It acknowledged and apologised for its complaint handling failures and increased its stage 1 offer of £60 to £200 for its late responses. It offered an additional £50 for time and trouble pursuing the complaint, and £300 for distress and inconvenience regarding the temporary move, a total compensation offer of £550.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wants it to formally apologise and increase its compensation offer. She also said that it had failed to provide a disturbance payment when she moved to alternative accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Reports of a personal injury due to a ruptured post surgery incision, sustained moving to temporary accommodation.
Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
In the resident’s complaint she said that she sustained an injury while staying in temporary accommodation. She had an emergency caesarean and ruptured her incision due to carrying luggage from hotel to hotel. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it appropriately advised her that if she believed it had been negligent, she could make a claim via its public liability insurance.

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s correspondence she said that the conditions in her flat affected her asthma, respiratory issues, and allergies. She also described her concerns for her premature baby who also had a respiratory and heart condition. She added that the situation had impacted her mental health.
The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the resident’s complaint that the landlord’s inaction affected her health or caused illness is better dealt with via the court.
The resident said that she had been reporting damp and mould in her home since 2020. While we do not dispute this, we are unable to consider this timeframe. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the events 1-year prior to the resident making her complaint, up to the landlord’s final response on 15 December 2023. Any events prior to this or following the landlord’s final response are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.
The resident raised new concerns to us including repairs, damp and mould in her new home, and the suitability of her new accommodation. These matters occurred after the landlord’s final response and did not form part of her original complaint. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns. The resident will need to contact the landlord about these additional matters and, if appropriate, raise another complaint to us if she is dissatisfied with the way it responds.

Reports of repairs, damp, and mould

In the resident’s complaint she said there was an issue with condensation in all flats in the block. She said this was affecting all parts of her flat and had been ongoing since she moved in. She said she had peeling wallpaper, black mould, rotting floorboards, damaged windowsills, and this had caused damage to her belongings and furniture. She reported that there was exposed pipework and said this was causing condensation in her bedroom and bathroom. She referred to housing legislation and said the landlord had a responsibility to keep its accommodation free from damp and mould.
Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
The evidence shows that the landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s flat on 12 July 2023, prior to her making her complaint. It identified flaking paint in the bathroom and hallway and considered this may be due to a leak from the shower tray. It found no mould in the property but acknowledged there was damp on the wall. It noted that there was a 1-week old baby in the property.
The landlord completed a further inspection on 27 July 2023 and identified multiple repair issues. Again, it found no presence of mould on the walls or ceilings. The repairs included upgrading the kitchen, overhauling extractor fans, investigating a possible leak from the shower, boxing in central heating pipes, and removing loose paint and redecorating. Given that the resident had a newborn baby with health concerns, and she said she did not want to stay in the property while it completed the repairs, the landlord appropriately agreed to move her to alternative temporary accommodation.
The landlord’s records of 10 August 2023 referred to installing a key safe that day. It said that once it had the keys it would arrange to do the work which it anticipated would take 2 weeks. Further records of 15 August 2023 referred to 1 of the resident’s dogs being in the property. It noted that she was unwilling to put the dog into kennels and the other had gone to her mother’s home. It said it was unable to start the work while the dog remained on site.
On 18 August 2023 the landlord spoke with the resident about the remaining dog and that she had declined its offer of kennels. It noted that she had declined an offer of an alternative property and wished to remain in a hotel until it found her a permanent move.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said that its records showed that the resident first made a report of damp and mould in 2020. It set out the actions it took, difficulties it experienced in making appointments, gaining access, and detailed when it completed the work. It said it received no further reports until 28 July 2022 when she reported the fan in the bedroom not working. Its contractor was instructed to replace the fan in the living room and bedroom and an appointment was made for 18 August 2022. It was unable to gain access on the day and a further appointment was made for 26 September 2022. This had also been cancelled as she was unwell.
The landlord said it received no further reports until 20 June 2023. It arranged an appointment but she denied access. Following its inspection in July 2023 it found that several items required addressing. It listed the required repairs and said it had completed 3 inspections to the property on 27 June, 3 and 12 July 2023. During these inspections it found no evidence of mould in the property.
The landlord’s response demonstrated that it investigated its repairs history and had taken action to address the reported repairs. Its response was reasonable in that it found no evidence of mould on 3 separate occasions. It acknowledged that repairs were required to the resident’s home and was attempting to arrange these.
In the resident’s escalation request she said she was entitled to compensation for the amount of time she had to live in uninhabitable conditions.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said that its contractor had attended within the agreed timescales and made every effort to complete repairs. It said that the resident had disputed refusing access and agreed that it should have made clear that it had received no contact to arrange appointments. She stated that when she moved back from hotel accommodation, her home still had damp and mould issues. It explained that while she was temporarily rehoused from the property, she was unable to keep her dogs with her at the hotel and had left the dogs in the property alone. It said it had advised her that the operatives would be unable to complete the work while the dogs were there. It was pleased that she had been rehoused to another property and said that the repair works would be completed while the property was vacant.
We appreciate that the outstanding repairs would have likely been distressing for the resident, particularly with a newborn baby. However, we have made a finding of no maladministration as the landlord demonstrated that it investigated its repairs records, moved the resident to temporary accommodation to safeguard her and her baby, and attempted to complete the repairs. We accept that the works were delayed due to the dogs remaining in the property but it made a reasonable offer to provide kennels to resolve this at the time.

Move to temporary accommodation

The landlord’s records show that the resident and her social worker requested temporary accommodation in July 2023. The date of the resident’s initial move to a hotel is not known but was likely in mid to late July 2023.
In the resident’s complaint she explained that she had a premature baby and was recovering from an emergency caesarean. She said that the hotel accommodation provided was poor quality and she had found bed bugs. She woke to find “hives” on her back and face and found a bed bug next to her baby’s moses basket. She managed to trap the bug and notified the hotel. She sent photographic evidence and said when she called the out of hours service they kept hanging up and laughing at the situation. She had to ask the hotel to remove the cot provided as it was for a toddler and was refused an armchair to nurse her child. She explained that lying on the bed was not advised post surgery as it increased the risk of blood clots. When she returned from a hospital appointment housekeeping had removed the bedbug stating it was nothing more than a fly. She proceeded to leave the hotel.
It is not disputed that there were some failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to temporary accommodation. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord contacted the resident on 11 August 2023 and referred to staying in an apartment rather than a hotel on a short-term basis. This would be from 14 August 2023. On this date the resident reported that she had not been allowed to enter the apartment by the receptionist as they stated that she needed to pay a £200 deposit before being given the key. The booking was on the system but no deposit had been paid. It contacted the accommodation who confirmed this and asked for the manager to call back. It is not known where the resident resided at this point. This would likely have added to her distress particularly as she had a newborn baby.
The landlord’s records of the same date referred to the resident’s situation and that she had been staying in hotels. It noted that she was young and vulnerable and the hotels did not have proper facilities. It confirmed to the resident on 18 August 2023 that it had an alternative 1-bedroom property coming available. She agreed she was open to considering this and would wait in a hotel until it was available.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it confirmed that it had provided temporary accommodation while she waited for a management transfer to another 1-bedroom property. It referred to her allegation of bed bugs and the photograph she sent. This had been examined by its pest control team who confirmed that the insect was not a bed bug. It apologised that this had affected her stay in the hotel but found no evidence to suggest that the skin condition was as a result of a bed bug infestation. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its pest control team to identify the insect and reassure her that it was not a bed bug.
The landlord said it would always try to accommodate residents’ requests for facilities in temporary accommodation. It was aware that she required a fridge and ensured the booking accommodated this but was not aware of a request for an armchair. The booking details confirmed that there was a kitchen, bathroom, cooking facilities, fridge, a twin bed and a double sofa. It apologised that the accommodation provided by the hotel did not match this description. It said it had raised this issue with its booking agents. It acknowledged that this would have been distressing. Its response was reasonable and demonstrates that it had attempted to provide appropriate temporary accommodation.
The landlord also referred to the resident’s conversation with its out of hours service when it terminated a call. It said that its staff had the right to work without being subjected to abuse. Its customer advisor should have warned her that they would end the call prior to doing so. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said that it had tried to accommodate the resident’s needs for temporary accommodation. It apologised that it had not offered any additional support in respect of moving her belongings at the time. It initially understood that she was being supported by the baby’s father, but was aware of her medical condition and should have done more to understand what support would have been helpful. This included liaising with her social care support. It upheld her complaint as it recognised that it could have provided more support during the moves. It offered £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
We empathise that it would have likely been distressing for the resident to be in temporary accommodation with a newborn baby. However, the move to temporary accommodation was at the request of the social worker and resident. The landlord acted promptly to accommodate the request. It appropriately acknowledged and apologised that it could have provided more support. Its compensation offer was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in the circumstances.

Reports of delays moving to permanent alternative accommodation

In the resident’s correspondence she complained that there had been a delay moving to her new flat. There was limited evidence provided in relation to this matter.
However, in the landlord’s stage 2 response it apologised that the resident had been unable to move on the original date. It explained this was due to lack of parking on the day for its removal company. It said it should have considered this before removals were finalised and said it was sorry for the lack of proper planning which resulted in the delay. While it had rearranged the move for the following day, she explained that this was her birthday and she would make her own arrangements. It said it was happy to cover the cost and would reimburse her if she provided an invoice.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the 1-day delay and it made a reasonable offer to rearrange this for the following day. Given that the resident opted to make her own arrangements, its offer to reimburse her for any expenses was reasonable. We, therefore, find no maladministration in the circumstances.
The resident also mentioned in her correspondence that the landlord had failed to provide a disturbance payment. While the landlord may have not had the opportunity to respond to this matter, its compensation policy is clear on when it will make a home loss or disturbance payment. This includes where a tenant is required to move home permanently as a result of a redevelopment or demolition of their home, and when a resident has lived at a property for less than 12 months and is required to permanently move. It says that there is no compensation entitlement where the tenant has made a decision or requested to move. The resident’s situation, in requesting a permanent move did not fulfil the requirement of receiving a home loss or disturbance payment.

Associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident raised her complaint on 31 July 2023. It provided a stage 1 response on 5 October 2023, 48 working days later, and 38 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. It appropriately apologised for the delay and offered £60 compensation. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure for a short duration which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 October 2023. Initially the landlord said it would not escalate the complaint as it found no service failure and had awarded appropriate compensation in the amount of £60 for its complaint handling failure. It then acknowledged the request and escalated the complaint on 12 October 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 15 December 2023, 51 working days later, and 31 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. It appropriately apologised for the delay and offered £250 compensation comprising, £200 in recognition of the delay and £50 for time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance as stated above. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about a personal injury is outside our jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of required repairs, damp, and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s move to temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of delays moving to permanent alternative accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pay to the resident the sum of £550 offered in its stage 2 response.