City of Westminster Council (202336425)

Background

1. The resident has a 5 year flexible tenancy. She has been resident since May 2021 and lives in a 2 bedroomed house. She has two children. She began reporting issues about her kitchen and boiler since 2022.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen and the boiler.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen and the boiler.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not complete works to the kitchen and the boiler in line with its repair policy. There were significant delays in resolving repairs. It did not provide suitable liaison with the contractor for the resident. It did not keep the resident updated. It did not follow-up outstanding repairs. While it acknowledged failings with the contractor around the flooring, there is no evidence it responded as promised.
7. The landlord delayed its response at both stages of the complaints process. It did not acknowledge either complaint in line with its complaint policy. It required intervention from the Ombudsman to provide a response.

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.

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.

8. On 9 May 2022, the resident reported a leaking waste pipe and was unable to use the washing machine or sink. The landlord marked the repair as an emergency. Its repair policy says that immediate repairs will be attended to within 2 hours and made safe within 24 hours. The landlord has provided no details of when these repairs were completed so we cannot confirm if it met its repair timescales. This is a failing in record-keeping. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise
9. On 13 June 2022, the resident reported a blocked sink. The landlord’s notes say the kitchen waste pipe kept blocking and the pipe under the sink was incorrectly installed. The landlord marked this as a routine repair. Its repair procedure says that non-urgent jobs will be attended to and completed within 28 working days. The landlord has provided no details of when this repair was completed so we cannot confirm if it met its repair timescales. This is a failing in record-keeping. As the resident raised the same repair several more times, this would show the repair was not effectively completed.
10. On 18 November 2022, the landlord raised an immediate repair around water entering the property through the boiler flue pipe. The repair notes say the boiler flue pipe was angled incorrectly, allowing rainwater to leak through it into the property. The landlord has provided no details of what action it took in response to this repair. This is a failing in record keeping.
11. The landlord completed a property inspection on 23 January 2023 and confirmed the same issue of water seeping in through the flue. This inspection was 43 working days after the repair was first reported. This should have been treated as a routine repair and completed in the relevant timescales.
12. On 10 February 2023, the resident reported a repair. Water was running down the external wall from the gutter and entering the property from the boiler flue pipe. The landlord’s repair log shows it needed to recall a roofer.
13. The landlord completed a property inspection on 7 March 2023. It found the gutter was cracked and damaged. Water was leaking onto the resident’s rear wall and entering the property from the incorrectly angled boiler flue pipe. The landlord raised the gutter job on 9 March 2023 as a routine repair. The landlord completed temporary repairs to the gutter on 13 April 2023. This was 100 working days after the initial repair request was raised around water entering the property via the boiler. This is outside the repair policy timescales.
14. The temporary repair reduced the amount of water able to enter the property through the boiler flue pipe. The landlord notes say this was not a full repair. The contractor notes state the gutter is old, damaged and needed replacing immediately. The landlord has provided no evidence of any lasting repair.
15. In May 2023, the Housing Ombudsman spotlight report “On the record” focussed on Knowledge and Information Management. It highlighted that poor record keeping can cause repeated failures in repair management. It recommended good practice as logging repairs accurately and ensuring follow-up actions are reported, tracked and clearly communicated with residents.
16. On 7,16 and 25 September 2023, the resident made repair requests for her boiler. She reported a leaking boiler and no heating or hot water. The landlord raised all jobs as immediate repairs which was appropriate. There was no access on 7 September. On 16 September a blockage was cleared. On 25 September a leak was identified. The number of repeat repair requests show the landlord should have examined why the boiler was failing and completed lasting repairs.
17. During the repair visit on 25 September 2023, the contractor’s notes say the waste pipe was incorrectly fitted. This caused blockages in the sink, boiler and washing machine. This was 327 working days after the same defect was first recorded on 13 June 2022. There is no evidence the landlord raised any repairs following the contractor feedback.
18. The landlord’s evidence shows the contractor said the resident should tell the landlord to move the waste pipe to prevent the same repair issues re-occurring. The contractor acts on behalf of the landlord and as an agent of the landlord. The contractor should not be advising the resident to report something to the landlord that has come to its knowledge on a repair job. The landlord should have a process of feedback where a contractor gives the outcome of a visit and any follow-up work required.
19. On 4 October 2023, the resident reported a leak behind the kitchen unit. The landlord raised a repair to investigate the cause and classed it as a routine repair. The landlord attended on 11 October 2023, in line with its repair policy for non-urgent works.
20. The landlord raised an urgent job for the boiler. It included resolving the issue with the kitchen sink waste pipe and taps. The landlord’s repair procedure states urgent jobs will be attended to and completed within 3 working days. The landlord did not complete this work. This is a failure to follow its repair policy timescales.
21. On 26 October 2023, the resident requested a repair for the kitchen sink mixer tap. This was a repeat request of the repair identified on 11 October 2023 which had not been completed. This was 11 working days after the urgent job was raised.
22. On 27 November 2023, the resident raised a complaint. She said she had not received any follow-up about her waste pipe repair. She reported being told different contractors would need to attend but had not been contacted. She emailed one contractor but still did not receive an appointment. This was poor communication. She requested the works be completed quickly because the issue was affecting her ability to use her washing machine, boiler, and kitchen sink. This was 372 working days after the contractor found the same fault.
23. On4 January 2024, the landlord raised urgent repair works. The contractor attended on 5 January 2024 and due to the amount of work needed, booked a second visit for 17 January 2024. This was 406 working days after the fault was first found.
24. The resident was unhappy with the repair appointment on 17 January 2024. As part of her stage 2 escalation request on 15 February 2024, she reported the visit lasted over 10 hours and left her without access to a toilet, heating or running water. The resident had a young child in the house. Although the landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response, it did not appropriately consider the impact on a young family without essential provisions.
25. In its stage 1 response on 30 January 2024, the landlord offered to complete a post repair inspection survey once all works were finished. This was booked for 7 February 2024. It did not complete this. This was a failing.
26. In her stage 2 escalation, the resident said the contractor had failed to protect the floor, causing damage from tools and water leaking all over her floor. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had previously asked the contractor to contact the resident about the damaged flooring. It promised to liaise with the contractor to ensure the flooring was rectified. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 29 April 2024 to say the contractor had not contacted her. In December 2025, the resident said she had still not been contacted. The landlord provided no evidence of liaison with the contractor or resolution to the problem. The landlord could have addressed the resident’s concerns under its compensation policy or directed her to make a claim through its insurance provider. We consider this a failing and have made an order to rectify it.
27. The landlord’s stage 2 response ordered a surveyor inspection of other outstanding repairs required at the property. This was booked for 11 April 2024 after other works had been completed. The landlord did not complete this inspection. This is a landlord failing.
28. The landlord tried to put things right for the resident. It apologised and offered compensation for delays in works, poor communication, missed surveyor appointments, inconvenience and the time and trouble pursuing the repairs. However, it did not fully acknowledge the length of delay and the reasons why it had taken so long. It did not provide evidence of liaison with contractors to resolve the flooring issue. It did not complete what it said it would for the resident.  The resident reports her boiler still leaks due to rainwater entering through the flue. This is over 3 years since the defect was first identified.
29. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the kitchen and the boiler.

30. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2022 edition. The landlord has a published complaints policy which is compliant with the Code.
31. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and stage 2 within 2 working days. The resident made her complaint on 27 November 2023. The landlord called the resident on 29 January 2023 to clarify the complaint, 42 working days later. This is a failure and not compliant with its policy.
32. The landlord says it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days. It issued its response on 30 January 2024. This was 43 working days after the complaint and outside its policy timescales.
33. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She asked for the complaint to be escalated on 15 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 18 March 2024. This was 22 working days later. This is not compliant with its own policy or the Code.
34. The landlord’s complaint policy requires a holding response when further investigation is needed, explaining the delay if it needs to extend the complaint response date. On 18 March 2024, the landlord extended the response date to 28 March 2024. It did not provide a reason for the delay.
35. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it aims to respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. It responded to the complaint on 8 April 2024. This was after our intervention. This was 36 days after the resident’s escalation and 6 working days beyond its own deadline. This was not in line with its policy or the Code. This is a failing.
36. The landlord attempted to remedy its poor complaint handling by offering an apology and £125 compensation for its failings at stages 1 and 2. However, it did not recognise the full impact of its failings or the distress and inconvenience to the resident. It did not meet any of its published timescales at either stage 1 or stage 2. Intervention was needed from this Service to ensure a response was provided. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and increase its award to £250, in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

37. The landlord should acknowledge complaints in line with its policy and the Code. Doing so confirms the resident complaint has been received and is being dealt with. It also clarifies the complaint and ensures the landlord understands the issues raised.
38. In its stage 1 response, the landlord committed to reviewing procedures with contractors to improve customer experience. However, it failed to liaise effectively with the contractor to resolve the flooring.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. For a number of repairs, there was no evidence of any follow-up actions or records of work completed. The landlord should ensure it has full, accessible records of actions taken around repairs.
40. The landlord’s stage 1 response contained incorrect job numbers and dates of repairs. The landlord should look into why this happened and ensure accurate record keeping.

Communication

41. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident during the repairs process.