Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

City of Westminster Council (202432593)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432593

City of Westminster Council

18 September 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property, a 3-bedroom flat.
  2. In December 2023 the resident reported she had damp and mould in the rear bedroom of the property. The landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the damp and mould in February 2024.
  3. On 26 April 2024 the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.

 

 

  1. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 May 2024. The landlord apologised for its delays in carrying out the repointing of the brickwork and inspecting the further report of damp and mould at the property. It awarded the resident £150 compensation and said its contractor would be in touch to erect the scaffolding required to complete repointing. The landlord said it would then complete the internal works to address the damp and mould in the rear bedroom of the property.
  2. On 30 May 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The resident said there were factual errors in the landlord’s complaint response. She also said the landlord had not responded to her communication and the works remained outstanding.
  3. On 5 July 2024 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord apologised for its error in its stage 1 complaint response about its surveyor’s communication with the resident. It increased its offer of compensation to £260 and said it would monitor the works to address the damp and mould within the property.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman stating she wanted the landlord to carry out the works and resolve the issues with the damp and mould within the property.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies our Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.

  1. On 10 December 2023 the resident reported she had damp and mould in the rear bedroom of the property. The landlord carried out an inspection of the damp and mould on 6 February 2024. We have not been provided with any evidence from the landlord about this inspection or its communication with the resident about this. We would expect the landlord to be able to provide this information and its failure to do so is evidence of poor record keeping.
  2. Between 25 March 2024 and 28 March 2024, the landlord raised a works order for its contractor to erect scaffolding and carry out the repointing of the brickwork at the property. We understand this was part of the landlord’s repairs to address the damp and mould within the rear bedroom. We have not been provided with any reason it took the landlord 48 days after its survey to raise these works. The landlord should have raised it within 5 working days.
  3. Between March 2024 and April 2024, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s multiple requests for an update on its repairs. She also reported further damp patches in the rear bedroom of the property. We would expect the landlord to have acknowledged her requests within 5 working days. This is evidence of poor communication.
  4. In the landlord stage 1 complaint response on 10 May 2024, the landlord said it would carry out an inspection of the newly identified areas of damp within the property. This inspection was completed 42 days later. This was also 109 days after the resident first reported the new area of damp. The landlord should have carried out this inspection within 28 days, in line with industry best practice. This is evidence of the landlord’s poor handling of its repairs.
  5. In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint on 5 July 2024, the landlord said it would carry out works to address the damp and mould after it had erected the scaffolding. This work remains outstanding 431 days later. This is a significant delay which we understand has caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and that she has damp patches within the rear bedroom.
  6. We understand the landlord needed to access neighbouring properties to erect the scaffolding required to complete the works. This meant the landlord may have needed longer than 28 days, which the landlord states in its tenant’s handbook it will take to complete non-urgent (routine) repairs. However, the landlord should have kept the resident updated. It should have also set out a timescale, which should have been reasonable and in line with industry best practice. If the landlord experienced difficulties gaining access to any of the neighbouring properties, it should have followed its relevant policy to resolve any access issues and ensure it could carry out the necessary repairs.
  7. In August 2024 the landlord’s surveyor identified the following potential causes of the damp and mould within the property:
    1. Areas of damage to the brick work.
    2. A crack in the wall underneath the drainpipe.
    3. Multiple defects within the drainage system.
  8. It was appropriate the landlord carried out this survey. It is also accepted that sometimes investigating the cause of damp and mould can take multiple visits and there may be more than 1 underlying cause. However, we have not seen any evidence the landlord has followed up on any of these potential causes, which was a failing.
  9. We understand the landlord carried out another external inspection of the property, in August 2025. The landlord said it had been unable to carry out an inspection within the rear bedroom, which is where the resident has said the damp and mould had got worse. Therefore, we will make an order for the landlord to carry out an inspection of the damp and mould within the property within 28 days. This is to also include an inspection of the drainage system as it referred to in its previous inspection in August 2024.
  10. The landlord is to then set out a schedule of works it is responsible for, including timescales that are reasonable and in line with industry best practice, which it is to share with the resident and the Ombudsman.
  11. For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs within the property.
  12. The landlord awarded the resident £260 compensation within its stage 1 and stage 2 responses to the resident’s complaint. It is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right, but we do not consider that the landlord went far enough. We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors. We will increase the award to £750. This is to take into consideration the overall significant delays, poor communication, and because the repairs remain outstanding over a year after the end of the landlord’s complaints process. Examples of this level of compensation in our guidance include where the landlord’s errors have had an adverse effect upon the resident over a prolonged period of time, but there may be no permanent impact.

The resident’s associated complaint.

  1. On 10 May 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property. The landlord provided its stage 1 written complaint response within 10 working days. This was on time and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling).
  2. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 30 May 2024. The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint on 5 July 2024. This was 26 working days later. This was appropriate because the landlord had told the resident that it needed further time to respond to her complaint. We would expect a landlord to provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days, in line with the Code. However, where the landlord may need further time to respond to a resident’s complaint, this should not exceed a further 20 working days.
  3. The landlord apologised within its final response to the resident’s complaint about its error in its stage 1 written complaint response. This was in respect of the timing of its surveyor’s previous communication with the resident. We consider the landlord’s apology for this discrepancy to have been a proportionate response.
  4. The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint was appropriate given regard to all the circumstances. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology is to be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration and expresses a sincere regret for errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident a total amount of £750 compensation which includes the £260 it awarded in its final response to the resident’s complaint. The £260 can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
  3. The landlord is to carry out the following within 6 weeks:
    1. An inspection of the damp and mould within the property.
    2. A CCTV site survey of the drainage system as it referred to in its previous inspection, in August 2024.
  4. The landlord is to then set out a schedule of works it is responsible for, including timescales that are reasonable and in line with industry best practice, which it is to share with the resident and the Ombudsman.