City of Westminster Council (202437516)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of leaks from the property above.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks from the property above
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. Intermittent leaks have occurred in the resident’s property for a significant period of time. The landlord has demonstrated that there were significant challenges in resolving this. However, the landlord has not acted within its repairs timescales, and there were periods of inaction. The landlord did not fully consider the impact on the resident, and we have found that there was poor communication from the landlord to the resident.
7. The landlord responded to the complaint in accordance with its complaints 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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

8. On 6 February 2024 the landlord said in internal emails that it had done an inspection in October 2023, and it identified it needed to do works in the neighbour’s property. This property was directly above the resident. It said it had not followed up on this inspection. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend to routine repairs within 28 working days. The evidence suggests the leak was intermittent, rather than constant, and as such it may have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the repair as non-urgent. However, it was unreasonable for the landlord to take no action between October 2023 and February 2024.
9. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord attempted to attend the neighbours flat on at least 3 occasions between 6 February 2024 and 1 March 2024. The landlord has demonstrated that it was attempting to resolve the leak during this period. The Ombudsman recognises that access issues can delay repairs. We consider the number of attempts to access the property, and the attempts to engage with the neighbour during this period to be reasonable
10. On 7 May 2024 the landlord has noted it completed repairs to the neighbour’s flat that it had identified as required in October 2023. It noted it identified a source of the leak and repaired it. The landlord has demonstrated that it took action to complete the repairs. However, we consider the overall time to complete the repairs to be unreasonable.
11. On 17 September 2024 the resident informed the landlord that he was unable to sleep in his bed due to a leak from the property above. On becoming aware of this it may have been reasonable for the landlord to consider if it needed to attend to the repair urgently. The landlord’s policy states it should attend within 7 working days and repair the leak, when the repair is urgent. It attended on 27 September 2024, which was reasonable, however, it was unable to repair due to access issues from the property above.
12. The landlord produced a report on 27 September 2024 which included pictures of the resident’s bed which shows some water stains. An internal email dated 1 October 2024 said that the leak was affecting the resident’s bedroom. As the resident had said he could not sleep in his own bed, and there was evidence to indicate the leak was affecting the bedroom, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer support and advice to the resident. This may have involved suggesting interim solutions to improve his sleeping situation while the leak was ongoing.
13. On 16 October 2024 the landlord said in internal emails that it was still unable to access the neighbour’s property. On 24 October 2024 the landlord received an email from a contractor who had been able to access the neighbour’s property. It advised that any work would be difficult. The Ombudsman has seen information that supports that there were challenges for the landlord in accessing the above property, and that there would be challenges in completing work.
14. On 20 November 2024 the resident said the issue was affecting his mental health. He re-iterated that he could not sleep in his room. He also noted that there had been damage to his belongings. While the Ombudsman understands that there were complications with completing the repairs in a timely manner, we have not seen evidence that the landlord considered the impact the matter was having on the resident. Its repairs policy states that it will consider temporary accommodation wherever it is appropriate. We have not seen evidence that the landlord considered this in this instance.
15. The resident made call back requests on 27 November 2024, 12 December 2024 and 17 December 2024. The landlord contacted the resident on 19 December 2024. We consider it unreasonable that it took 3 call attempts over a period of more than 2 weeks before the resident received a response from the landlord. Throughout the period of time we have assessed we have not seen evidence that the landlord was proactively updating the resident on repairs, despite his requests. The lack of engagement from the landlord is likely to have caused additional distress and frustration to the resident.
16. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it was looking into legal routes to gain access to the property above. We are aware of a change of circumstances regarding the property above in December 2024, which meant this action was no longer appropriate. We are also aware that the landlord experienced new challenges in accessing the property.
17. In the stage 2 response the landlord committed to updating the resident within 2 weeks. It contacted the resident on 3 January 2025 who confirmed the leak had stopped. The landlord noted that this meant the work was no longer urgent, although it still needed to complete work to the neighbouring property. The landlord has fulfilled its commitment at stage 2. We recognise that the resident has experienced further issues since the stage 2, including reoccurrence of leaks. If he is unhappy with the landlord’s handling since this time, he would need to make a new complaint.
18. The landlord offered £250 compensation in the stage 2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider all the circumstances when assessing compensation. We note the compensation was awarded as follows:
    1. £100 not meeting its repairs timescales.
    2. £100 for not delivering on its commitment promised in the stage 1 response
    3. £50 for inconvenience in the resident pursuing the matter.

The landlord did not acknowledge some failings in its complaints response, and we consider additional compensation to be appropriate, in line with our remedies guidance. We have awarded:

4. An additional £100 for the landlord’s failure to take any action in relation to repairs between October 2023 and February 2024.
5. £150 for failing to provide support to the resident when he advised the landlord how the matter was impacting him.

The total compensation is £500, and this includes the amount previously offered to the resident.

19. The resident raised that he had damage to items and the landlord addressed this in the stage 2 response. It said it did not indemnify residents for damage to personal belongings, fixtures, fittings that is due to water leaking into the home. It advised the resident to claim on his own contents insurance. The resident has advised that he had made a claim on his insurance and received a payment. However, as the matter was ongoing it would not make further payments. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says we do not make orders of compensation in the way an insurer would. As such we will not make orders for damages, and the resident may need to speak to his insurance if he is unhappy with their response.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It responded within 6 working days. Its complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 2 complaints withing 20 working days. It took 22. While this is slightly outside of the timescales in the policy, we do not believe this would have caused an adverse effect on the resident.
21. The complaints responses addressed the issues raised by the resident. The landlord has followed its complaints policy.