City of Westminster Council (202334157)

Decision
Case ID	202334157
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Westminster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	24 October 2025 Updated 14 January 2026

Background

The resident experienced a leak from her boiler on a Friday. The landlord’s contractor attended as an out-of-hours appointment and shut off the boiler to stop the leak. As a result the resident did not have heating or hot water. She contacted the landlord the following day to chase the repair. She explained that she experienced incontinence. The landlord advised that the repair would be carried out on the Monday. It completed the repair as advised.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident having no heating or hot water.
2. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident having no heating or hot water.
2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident having no heating or hot water

The landlord reinstated the resident’s heating and hot water within the timeframe of its repairs policy. During the time the resident was without these facilities it offered a temporary heater and for the resident to move temporarily, although this was not followed through. It acknowledged it had made communication errors and offered compensation which was proportionate to the level of its failing.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord’s stage 1 response was delayed by 10 working days. Its stage 2 response was one day late. It acknowledged these delays and set out learning it had taken from the case. It offered compensation which was proportionate to its failings.

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.

Recommendation

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord reoffer the compensation of £420 directly to the resident. It this has already been paid, no further action is needed.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 October 2023	The resident reported a leak from her boiler. A contractor attended the same day as an out-of-hours appointment and isolated the boiler. It noted that new parts were needed. It offered fan heaters but the resident declined.
21 October 2023	The resident made a complaint to the landlord and said as follows: From around 8pm on 20 October 2023 she had no heating or hot water. The contractor who had attended out of hours had told her the issue should be resolved over the weekend. She had called the landlord that day, 21 October 2023, as the repair had not been completed. She had explained that she had vulnerabilities and needed hot water to wash. Two members of the landlord’s staff had been “dismissive” and “confrontational”.
23 October 2023	Work to the boiler was completed and the heating and hot water was reinstated.
20 November 2023	The landlord responded at stage 1. It said as follows: It apologised that the resident had been told by the contractor that the repair would be completed over the weekend. Its staff member had correctly advised her that repairs could not be conducted out of hours. It had listened to the call with the resident. It acknowledged it could have handled the conversation better. It should have explained why the resident had not been called by a manager. It had offered temporary accommodation to the resident. However, it should have explained that this would need to be approved by a manager. It apologised for this. It acknowledged that both parties had talked over one another during the telephone call. It apologised and noted it could have delivered the information more appropriately. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and not keeping the resident updated. It offered £70 compensation, as follows: £50 for the inconvenience caused by the situation. £20 for complaint handling failures.
25 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the effect on her, including being left in soiled clothes, had not been addressed. She said she had agreed to being moved into a hotel but did not hear back from the landlord. She had to contact adult social services for help.
28 December 2023	The landlord responded at stage 2. It said as follows: It acknowledged the effect of the situation on the resident. It apologised for how it had handled the matter. It had explained the limitations of out-of-hours repairs and that it could only repair the issue during regular business hours. It acknowledged that the resident had raised concerns about soiled clothes during the phone call. Its staff had correctly advised that the only feasible solution was to temporarily move. It acknowledged that the circumstances had been unique and warranted further internal escalation and consideration of further support options. It had taken leaning from the situation. It apologised for the delay in providing the complaint response and for not keeping the resident updated. It explained how it was trying to avoid delays in responding to future complaints. It offered £420 compensation made up as follows: £70 previously offered at stage 1. £250 for distress caused by for the call handing service failures. £100 for complaint handling failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that the landlord had offered her temporary accommodation but it had not fully considered the “inconvenience and humiliation” of the events on her. She said the compensation was not enough to cover the loss of clothing, towels and bedsheets.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident having no heating or hot water
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident reported an issue with her boiler on 20 October 2023, which was a Friday. In order to stop the leak from it, the contractor had to shut the boiler off. The resident was therefore without heating and hot water from 20 October 2023. We have seen evidence from the contractor that they had offered a temporary heater but the resident had declined this.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the target timeframes it aims respond to repairs as follows:
1. A loss of heating and hot water between 1 November and 30 April is an ‘immediate’ repair. It will make such a repair safe within 24 hours.
2. A loss of heating and hot water between 1 May and 31 October is an ‘urgent’ repair. It will complete such work within 3 working days.
These timeframes mirror those set out in the Government’s ‘Right to Repair’ scheme. This is a list of repairs and the associated timeframes within which certain repairs should be completed.
Based on the landlord’s repairs policy and the right to repair scheme, the issue reported by the resident is classed as an urgent repair. As such, the landlord was expected to reinstate the heating and hot water within 3 working days.
The landlord reinstated the heating and hot water the next working day, Monday 23 October 2023. This was sooner than the timeframe it had to complete the work as set out in its repairs policy and the right to repair scheme. As such the time taken to reinstate the heating and hot water was reasonable.
The resident was disproportionately affected by having no hot water due to her vulnerabilities. We have seen evidence that the landlord responded to her concerns about how the situation was effecting her. It explained that the repair could not be carried out out-of-hours but arranged for it to be completed at the next earliest opportunity. It also offered to temporarily move her to other accommodation; however it is understood that was not followed through.
The evidence shows the landlord was limited in what it could do out-of-hours. The solutions it offered were reasonable given the information the resident gave about the need to be able to wash due to her vulnerability.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord apologised if the resident had received incorrect information about the prospect of a repair being done over the weekend. It apologised about confusion caused about the option of temporary accommodation caused during a call to its staff member. It subsequently offered compensation for the effect on the resident of this.
In response to the resident’s ongoing concerns about the effect the situation had on her, the landlord demonstrated it had taken this seriously and reconsidered its offer of compensation at stage 2. The additional amount reflected the distress caused to the resident by the mis-communication during her telephone calls to the landlord.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
The landlord considered the overall effect of its communication failures on the resident. It offered a total of £320 compensation for the substantive matter. This was within a range of compensation suggested by our remedies guidance where there were failures which adversely affected a resident. This was an appropriate level of compensation, which was proportionate to the landlord’s failings.
When the resident referred her case to us, she raised the issue of compensation for damaged clothing and bedding. We have not seen any evidence that the resident told the landlord that items had been damaged by the circumstances of this complaint. As such, it was reasonable that the landlord has not offered a resolution to this aspect and explains the absence of the matter as part of its compensation offer.
Our investigation has identified that the landlord has provided appropriate compensation to put right the failings we have identified in this investigation. In addition our investigation has found that the landlord’s handling of the matter was appropriate in the following ways:
1. It reinstated the heating and hot water sooner than the timeframe as set out in its repairs policy and the right to repair scheme, and within one working day.
2. It offered the resident a temporary heater.
3. It took her concerns seriously when assessing her complaint and listened to her telephone call with its staff member. It identified things it could have done better and set out that it would take learning from this.
4. It offered compensation to acknowledge the effect on the situation on the resident.
For these reasons there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident having no heating or hot water. This means the landlord made an offer to the resident which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy says that at stage 1 it aims to acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. It then aims to provide the stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days.
The resident made her complaint on 21 October 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 20 November 2023. This was 20 working days, double its published response timeframe. The landlord apologised for this delay and for not keeping the resident updated about the complaint. It offered £20 to acknowledge this. The landlord’s compensation policy does not specifically cover late responses to complaints but it says it will offer £20 for late correspondence.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 November 2023. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 28 December 2024. This was one working day outside of its published response timeframe. The landlord acknowledged this delay and apologised. It also outlined learning it had taken from the substantive issue and its complaints handling. It offered an additional £100 compensation for its complaint handing. This brought its total offer of compensation for its complaint handling to £120.
The landlord’s total offer of compensation for its complaint handling failures was reasonable as it was within a range recommended by our remedies guidance where there have been failures which adversely affected a resident. As such, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was good and we have not identified any issues with this.

Communication

The landlord was not always proactive in its communication with the resident about the progress of her complaint. However, the landlord acknowledged that it needed to improve and set out the steps it was taking to do so.