City of Westminster Council (202437891)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202437891

Westminster City Council

9 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a persistent roof leak and damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident holds a 5 year flexible tenancy with the landlord. The tenancy started on 25 December 2023. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a block. The resident lives with her husband and 2 young children. The resident is undergoing treatment for a serious health condition. Her son was born in January 2025 with a serious birth defect. As a result, both the resident and her son have weakened immune systems.
  2. The resident and her family moved into the property in early January 2024. She reported the roof leaking into her property straight away, as wet patches were forming on her ceiling. In response, the landlord carried out some work to the roof and gutters on 12 January 2024. Following further reports from the resident, the landlord inspected the property on 23 January 2024 and raised further roof repairs.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint about the delays in resolving the roof leak with the landlord on or around 19 March 2024. She escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 5 April 2024.
  4. The landlord carried out the repairs to the roof on 12 April 2024. It also made good the decorations in the property on or around 21 May 2024.
  5. The resident reported the leak again on 17 June 2024 following heavy rain. In response, the landlord completed further repairs on 19 August 2024. However, the problems persisted and the resident reported the leak again on 21 October 2024.
  6. The resident raised another formal complaint on 11 November 2024. She said after months of delays the landlord completed repairs to the roof and decorated her property. However, within weeks the walls and ceilings were damp again and mould was growing.
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 26 November 2024. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It said it was satisfied once it was aware of the issues, it attended the resident’s property within the required timescales to address the repairs.
  8. Following escalation to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 24 December 2024. It apologised for not addressing the resident’s concerns adequately at stage 1. It recognised that the standard of its repairs service had fallen below its expectations. It offered the resident £106 compensation made up of £56 to reimburse the resident for the cost of using a dehumidifier and £50 for stress and inconvenience.
  9. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This investigation will focus on the events that took place after the conclusion of the resident’s first formal complaint. This was on or around 19 April 2024. This is because the resident did not refer her first complaint to us to investigate. Therefore, the events leading up to the first complaint are not included in this investigation. However, this report makes reference to the events prior to this date to provide a background and to give overall context to the resident’s complaint.
  2. The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has had on the health of her family. We are unable to draw conclusions on causation, liability, or impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, we may consider any general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident and her family.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a persistent roof leak and damp and mould

  1. The resident noticed wet patches on her ceilings when she first moved into the property in January 2024. In response, the landlord raised repairs to the roof and gutter. The landlord’s contractors completed the work on 12 January 2024.
  2. The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 23 January 2024 following further reports of a leak. It raised further roof repairs on 24 January 2024. It completed a mould wash inside the property on 8 March 2024 and carried out repairs to the roof on 12 April 2024.It believed it had resolved the leak and so it stain blocked and made good the decorations to all water damaged areas on 21 May 2024.
  3. The resident reported a further roof leak on 17 June 2024 following heavy rain. The landlord agreed to visit her property the following day. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord attended and what the outcome of the visit was. However, it approved further work to the roof and wall at the edge of the roof (parapet wall). The evidence shows the landlord completed the work on 19 August 2024. This was 2 months from the date of the resident’s report and not in line with the timeframe of 28 days set within its repairs policy for routine repairs. This was an inappropriate delay in the circumstances, particularly as this was an ongoing problem.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 October 2024 as the wet patches on her bedroom and living room ceiling had returned. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s report. This was unreasonable and shows the landlord’s lack of urgency in rectifying the issue.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 11 November 2024. She said she had leaks in both her bedroom and her living room. She said the landlord said it had resolved the leak but the walls and ceiling were wet again and she could see mould appearing. She also said the paint was crumbling.
  6. The landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on 15 November 2024. It found that there was a leak from the roof into the bedroom and it recorded a high damp meter reading. It also found staining around the tops of the walls in the living room. As a result, the landlord raised further roof repairs. It noted on the repair request that the resident was vulnerable and the leak was causing damp and mould. Its contractor attended the resident’s property on 22 November 2024 to undertake a quote for the required works.
  7. The resident sent the landlord an email on 23 November 2024. She told the landlord she was concerned by the presence of damp and mould in her property. She said she was worried about her own health, as she was pregnant and had other health issues. She said she was also worried about the health of her young daughter. She also said the mould had damaged her personal belongings. She asked the landlord to prioritise the repairs. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s email. This was unreasonable given her concerns relating to the damp and mould and the health of her family. The landlord’s failure to respond on this occasion was further evidence of a lack of urgency to address the problem.
  8. The landlord carried out a mould wash to the affected areas on 25 November 2024. This was in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy (introduced in September 2024) which says it will arrange a mould wash treatment to be carried out within 10 working days of the inspection, or at the convenience of the resident.
  9. The landlord’s damp and mould policy notes some residents, including young children and people with some health conditions, such as respiratory issues or immune deficiencies, and those with disabilities, are potentially more vulnerable and at greater risk because of damp and mould. The policy says the landlord will:
    1. Agree an action plan with residents to ensure it resolves specific issues.
    2. Ask residents if they or household members have any health needs or disabilities requiring their repairs to be prioritised.
    3. Always tackle the underlying issue promptly and act with urgency when concerns have been raised about tenant health.
  10. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show it completed an action plan, or given any reasons as to why it felt an action plan was not necessary in this case. It also has not provided any evidence that shows it asked the resident about her family’s health needs or disabilities when she first reported the mould. There is also no evidence to show that it took the resident’s health concerns seriously following her email dated 23 November 2024. This was not in line with its policy as the resident was pregnant and had other serious health issues. She was also clearly worried about her daughter’s health due to the potential effects of damp and mould.
  11. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 26 November 2024. The response confirmed the landlord completed a mould wash following the resident’s report. It said its contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment to carry out the outstanding repairs. It said it was satisfied, once it was aware of the issue, that it had attended within the required timescales. Therefore, it said it could not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  12. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 5 December 2024. She said the damp and mould had damaged several items of furniture, including her mattress and bedframe. She said her daughter had a persistent cough and congestion. She said she also had a persistent cough, wheezing, skin irritations and itchy eyes. She said the smell of mould was unbearable. She said the ongoing situation had caused considerable stress and inconvenience, particularly as she was pregnant and managing additional medical issues. She said she was frustrated by the “half-hearted” repairs the landlord had carried out. She asked the landlord for compensation for the damage caused by the damp and mould.
  13. The landlord completed a further inspection of the resident’s property on 23 December 2024. It confirmed it had given the resident a dehumidifier to help control the humidity levels. It noted the resident said there was a strong smell of mould coming from a small gap under the windowsill and from behind the internally insulated walls. It said it needed to investigate further. However, there is no evidence the resident was given any specific timeline as to when it would undertake the further investigations. This lack of a definitive action plan was unreasonable considering the resident had already made the landlord aware of her health concerns and the vagueness of its response was likely to increase the distress being suffered by the resident and her family.
  14. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 24 December 2024. It said it had completed a mould wash on 25 November 2024. However, it recognised it was not a resolution to the ongoing leak. It said the leak remained a significant concern although, due to the humidity levels within the property, it could not complete the repairs until 23 January 2025. It said the dehumidifier it provided should help with the dampness and reduce further mould growth. It said it was monitoring the situation closely and it was committed to resolving the leak as quickly as possible.
  15. It acknowledged there had been significant delays in scheduling the repairs and a lack of updates, which meant the resident had to chase it for information. It also provided the resident with a link to submit a public liability claim if she felt it had acted negligently, and that this had led to injury, damage or loss. It apologised it had not adequately addressed her concerns at stage 1 and it offered compensation of £106. This was made up of £56 to cover the costs of running the dehumidifier and £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
  16. When a failure is identified, as in this case, 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 takes into account 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  17. Although the landlord acknowledged the delays in resolving the leak, it did not adequately address the resident’s health concerns or its failure to follow its damp and mould policy. It did not address whether the property was in a habitable condition or consider whether it needed to decant the family while it undertook the required work. The offer of compensation was not in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy which says awards of £50 to £100 are for “low impact”. It was insufficient and did not reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. In the landlord’s policy, low impact is described as “short duration, minimal, low inconvenience, and minimal distress that does not significantly affect the resident”. The evidence shows the landlord had improperly categorised the impact sustained by the resident.
  18. The evidence shows it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to award compensation under its “high impact” category (Awards of £600 to £1000). The example it gives under this category is “a service failure that has gone on for a long period of time, with a lack of action to address the issue such as an ongoing leak that has significantly worsened over time and has caused avoidable damage to the property which has impacted on the quality of the living environment”.

Events after stage 2

  1. The landlord completed an inspection on 16 January 2025 and completed further roof repairs on 6 February 2025. It completed a further inspection on 19 February 2025. During the inspection the surveyor noted that it was the fourth time they had visited the property since November 2024. They noted the damp patch was getting bigger and the situation was getting worse. They also questioned whether the resident and her family should be living in the property. Particularly as the resident had a young child and a baby.
  2. The landlord inspected the resident’s property again on 18 March 2025. It found moisture trapped in the roof void. It found the insulation above the bedroom saturated with water, and there was no ventilation to allow the area to dry. The moisture was tracking through the bedroom ceiling. It said, if the bedroom ceiling did not dry out, it would remove the affected area and renew the insulation. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the work went ahead. However, the resident has told us that the roof is still leaking. She also told us that the family are all sleeping in the single bedroom due to health concerns.
  3. In summary, there were unreasonable delays in the landlord establishing the root cause of the leak and in completing the necessary repairs. There was an overall lack of urgency from the landlord. There was also a lack of consideration of the resident’s, and her family’s, health conditions. The landlord did not follow its damp and mould policy or act in line with the timeframes set within its repairs policy. Although it acknowledged the delays in its stage 2 response and offered compensation, the compensation was not sufficient or in line with its compensation policy. As a result of these failings, and the level of detriment caused to the resident and her family, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a persistent roof leak and damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £800 in recognition of the delays to repairs, the level of detriment caused, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family.
    3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
    4. Assess the habitability of the property based on its current state and the health conditions and vulnerabilities of the family. If the property is found to be uninhabitable, the landlord must seek alternative options for the family while the repairs are undertaken. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with the outcome of the habitability assessment as soon as reasonably practicable following the assessment.
  2. Within six weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor to carry out a full roof survey. Within 2 weeks of the survey, the landlord must compile a full schedule of works with proposed dates for completion. The work undertaken must provide a long term fix. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the survey report and schedule of works. Any works required must commence within 6 weeks from the date of the survey report.
    2. Arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor to carry out a damp and mould survey of the property. Within 2 weeks of the survey, based on the recommendations made within the survey report, the landlord must compile a schedule of works with proposed dates for completion. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the report and schedule of works. The surveys can be combined if the surveyor is suitably qualified. Any required works must commence within 6 weeks from the date of the survey report.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.