City of Westminster Council (202413337)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bed flat owned by the landlord with her adult children. Her daughter is supporting her in bringing her complaint to us. We will refer to both the resident and her daughter as ‘the resident’ in this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We find the landlord has offered redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons

The handling of repairs

4. The landlord did not complete decoration repairs within its policy timescales. However, its compensation offers and learning from the complaint were in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

The complaint handling

5. There was a minor delay in the landlord’s acknowledgment of the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. Its compensation offer for this was fair and in line with its compensation policy. 

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

6. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to routine repairs in 28 working days. It defines routine repairs as those that pose no threat to occupants. It says it will attend urgent repairs within 7 working days. Urgent repairs are those that do not pose an immediate threat or safety risk but do negatively impact a resident’s access to utilities.

Radiators

7. The landlord completed initial works to the radiator within policy timescales. When the resident reported a leak on 29 December 2023, it repaired this on 1 February 2024. This was 3 days outside its routine repair policy timescale. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained this was due to waiting for parts. This was a reasonable explanation for a minor delay.
8. The resident reported a further radiator leak on 9 February 2024. The landlord attended and completed works on 15 February 2024, within policy timescales.

Kitchen taps

9. The resident reported issues with her kitchen taps on 22 November 2023. The landlord tried to attend twice on 6 December 2023 and 17 January 2024 but could not access the property. It tried to fix the issue within policy timescales.
10. The landlord replaced the tap heads on 26 January 2024. It revisited on 12 February 2024 in response to a request for a new mixer tap. It completed works on 4 March 2024, within its policy timescales.

Decorations

11. The landlord began decoration works on 19 September 2023. It completed works in the bathroom but requested an asbestos test for the bedroom ceiling. It had the results of this test on 20 November 2023 but did not share it with its surveyor until 30 January 2024. This contributed to work delays. It booked works for 9 February 2024 but rescheduled and completed these on 12 February 2024.
12. It is fair for a landlord to delay works when it needs to complete tests to ensure the health and safety of its operatives and residents. However, there is no evidence to explain why it did not share the results of the test with its surveyor for over 2 months. It completed works as planned on 12 February 2024.
13. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered to inspect the completed decoration works by 7 March 2024. It did not do this. The resident reported the paint began to peel again soon after completion in her escalation request of 17 May 2024. It inspected the property on 20 May 2024 and raised works on 30 May 2024 to complete decoration works again. It completed decoration works on 19 June 2024 after fixing a leak from an external downpipe.

Conclusion

14. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen taps and radiator was fair and within policy timescales except for one minor delay. However, there were failures in its handling of decoration works. It did not promptly share information internally for the purpose of rescheduling the works. The landlord’s £505 compensation offer was fair and in line with its compensation policy for a failure which adversely affected the resident. When it found an issue with its contractor’s communication it appropriately raised this with senior management. This showed learning from the complaint.

15. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. There were no issues with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint handling. There was a small delay acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 escalation. However, it responded within 20 working days of acknowledgement as per its policy.
16. The landlord’s £25 compensation offer for its complaint handling delay was fair and in line with its compensation policy.

Learning

17. The landlord could have avoided delays if it had effectively shared information about the asbestos test upon receiving the report. It may wish to check its processes for sharing information of this type for future cases.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The resident said the landlord had previously removed asbestos. She was concerned it did not have this information on record which led to further testing and delays. It should ensure it keeps accurate records after completing asbestos tests to avoid similar problems in the future.

Communication

19. The landlord’s communication was poor at times. For example, it did not share the asbestos report with its surveyor.