City of Westminster Council (202517680)

Decision
Case ID	202517680
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Westminster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Flexible Tenancy
Date	8 January 2026

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy began in May 2024. The property is a 2‑bedroom maisonette on the 18th floor of a building owned by the landlord. She has mobility issues, anxiety, and depression. Soon after moving in, she reported ongoing plumbing and sewage problems in the bathroom, which caused damage to the property and resulted in her being decanted. Further drainage problems occurred, leading the landlord to agree to carry out additional investigations into the cause. The resident says she has been unable to stay in the property since these issues began because she does not feel safe. She believes some works are still outstanding and is seeking the landlord’s support in securing permanent rehousing.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Plumbing, sewage, associated repairs and damage to the property.
   2. Rehousing.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found maladministration with the landlord’s response to plumbing, sewage, associated repairs and damage to the property.
4. We have found service failure with the landlord’s response to rehousing.
5. We have found reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to carry out timely repairs to ensure recurring drainage issues and associated repairs were resolved.
7. The landlord’s record keeping was poor in relation to the management of the temporary move.
8. The landlord delayed in responding to the stage 2 complaint, however, it put things right for the resident through its apology and compensation offer.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 16 February 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £735 made up as follows: £585 failures to manage the drainage and associated work in a timely manner £100 failures in the management of the temporary move This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	16 February 2026
3	Inspection order We have made an inspection order because there appears to be outstanding work at the property. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. The survey must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. This should take into consideration the resident’s individual circumstances The most likely cause of the drainage issue A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works The landlord must share its action plan and timescales for completion of the works with the resident and us by the due date.	16 February 2026
4	Review order The landlord must carry out a review of the complaint. It must provide its report that identifies how and when it will make improvements to its repair service in particular its record keeping and communications	2 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
1 The landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation for its complaint handling failure if it has not already done so. 2 The landlord should contact the resident to advise and support her in her request for permanent rehousing.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
June 2024	On 15 June 2024, the resident raised a complaint about a blocked toilet, resulting in damage to the property due to sewage water flooding the property and affecting the bedroom and her personal possessions. The resident stated the situation had “profoundly impacted her mental health”. The landlord had to arrange for her to be decanted. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response on 21 June 2024: Initial report and repair The toilet issue was reported on 5 June 2024, and the landlord attended the same day There was a broken pipe at the back of the toilet The issue was resolved, and a new toilet pan was fitted Damage After reviewing photographs, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for water damage to the toilet flooring Further attendance On 13 June 2024, the landlord carried out a deep clean of the bathroom and toilet Second Incident Another flood occurred on 15 June 2024 resulting in a decant until the property dried out and a deep clean was completed A surveyor attended on 17 June 2024 and arranged follow on work. The landlord explained it could not fully assess damage to the top-floor flooring, lounge ceiling, and cupboard until the flooring was removed, but confirmed that removal had been arranged as a priority It agreed to prioritise repairs to ensure she could move back as soon as possible Conclusion It acknowledged the issues had not been resolved with urgency and its contractors service fell below standard It appears that it offered her £400 in an earlier complaint, however, we do not have the records of this correspondence
February 2025 to May 2025	On 6 February 2025, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord issued its Stage 2 response on 22 May 2025, stating: It clarified that remedial work was completed on 26 March 2025. The toilet was removed, work carried out including a CCTV survey before the toilet was refitted. The water flow was tested to ensure it was left in working order It apologised for delays in communication The resident declined its offer to carry out flooring works because she wanted to be permanently rehoused Electrical tests were completed on 21 June 2024 and 1 October 2024, with no reported issues On 9 May 2025, the resident reported a 3rd drainage back surge through the bath. The landlord confirmed further investigations would be undertaken, however, it is unclear what these entailed It advised the resident that a permanent move would require her going through its lettings process It acknowledged some miscommunication about access and expressed confidence that this would improve It apologised for the delay in issuing its Stage 2 response It provided public liability insurance details for the resident to make a claim if she believed negligence had occurred Compensation Offer Increased from £400 (previously offered) to £635. We are unclear how the landlord determined the £400 compensation however, it broken down the additional £235 as follows: : £25 for having to pursue the complaint £40 for lack of communication £120 for impact on her and her daughter £50 for complaint handling failures Next Steps It agreed to arrange a further inspection within 14 working days
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 31 July 2025, the resident contacted us and reported: There were unresolved plumbing issues causing sewage back surges She was unable to live in the property due to these problems Her mental health had deteriorated as a result The resident told us she wanted the landlord to: Arrange a property transfer Complete outstanding repairs Compensate her appropriately for delays, distress, and inconvenience In a recent update, the resident told us she hasn’t been able to live at the property due to the issues. She has been living between family members and is separated from her daughter. She told us she did not feel safe to return to the property and the situation was causing her “extreme stress”.

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	Plumbing, sewage, associated repairs and damage to the property
Finding	Maladministration

9. The landlord was under a duty to repair the plumbing, sewage and associated repairs within a reasonable time of being given notice of an issue. This is set out in the written tenancy agreement and the implied terms in section 11(1)(c) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy prioritises repairs according to the health and safety risks. For example, it commits to carry out immediate repairs within 2 hours and make safe within 24 hours where there is an immediate health and safety risk. Urgent repairs within 1 to 7 days where there is no immediate safety issue and non-urgent repairs within 28 days.
11. The resident told us that her mental health has been impacted by the drainage issues and delays in resolving the matter. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim on health grounds. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
12. The resident reports that her personal possessions have been damaged by the sewage issues. It is more appropriate for this matter to be investigated by the landlord’s public liability insurer. The landlord has already provided the resident with details of how she can pursue such a claim. If not already done so, the resident should contact the landlord’s insurance company to submit a claim for damaged items.
13. The resident reported an issue with the toilet at the beginning of June 2024, and the landlord attended the same day, identified the issue and resolved this in accordance with its repairs policy. The landlord identified damage to the toilet flooring and arranged follow on works to attend in mid-June 2024 to carry out a deep clean of the area. The landlord’s actions were therefore reasonable.
14. In mid‑June 2024, the toilet blocked again, causing a flood. The landlord responded promptly, decanted the resident to a hotel and arranged for a surveyor to attend 2 days later. It stated that it organised necessary repairs that included clean ups and mould washes to the hall and bedroom. The resident expressed her concerns that work remained outstanding. The landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the issues and offered £400 in compensation. While its attempts to put things right for the resident were positive, we would expect it to have in place a plan of action including timescales for completion of all outstanding work.
15. The resident remained dissatisfied as issues remained outstanding which led her to escalate her complaint in February 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response in May 2025, confirming that it had checked the electrics and found no faults. It had also carried out preventative work in March 2025, including a CCTV drainage survey. However, in May 2025 the resident reported another blockage through the bath, and the landlord advised that further investigations would be undertaken. Although the landlord acknowledged its communication failures and demonstrated that some preventative work had been completed, it is of concern that drainage problems persisted. The landlord apologised, provided details of its public liability insurance and increased its compensation offer from £400 to £585. While these were all positive steps aimed at putting things right for the resident, the root cause of the issues did not appear to be resolved.
16. It is of concern that the resident reports issues remain unresolved resulting in her stating she cannot live at the property. There appears to be access issues which we appreciate may have slowed down repairs, however, we expect the landlord to make mutual agreed appointments with the resident to allow access to her home. This was particularly important given it was aware that she was not living at the property.
17. It is also concerning that despite the resident informing us the landlord knows that she is not staying at the property, we do not have evidence to support the landlord’s position in relation to repairs or how the landlord intends to support the resident in resolving the issues. For these reasons, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to plumbing, drainage, associated work and damaged items. While we consider the level of compensation to be appropriate and aligned to our remedies guidance, we have made orders to ensure the landlord takes steps to resolve the outstanding issues and supports the resident with a return to the property.

Complaint	Rehousing
Finding	Service failure

Temporary move

18. The landlord’s decant policy applies when it is necessary to rehouse tenants for a period of more than 4 weeks, because work must be carried out to their home that is so disruptive that it would be unreasonable to expect them to remain. It should also establish whether the tenant has any medical or care needs or vulnerabilities that warrant alternative accommodation, even if the work would not normally require the tenant to be decanted. After the 2nd sewage issue in mid-June 2024 the landlord initiated the decant policy and moved the resident to a hotel which was appropriate in the circumstances.
19. We do not have landlord evidence of the decant or duration of the stay. However, we have noted from the resident that she experienced uncertainty over the period of stay resulting in the hotel asking her to leave on a number of occasions despite no notification from the landlord that the property was ready for her to move back. This no doubt caused the resident additional distress as well as her time and trouble in having to contact the landlord to extend her hotel stay. We expect the landlord to be proactive in its management of the temporary move to minimise an already stressful situation.
20. The resident informed us she stayed at the hotel for around 3 months until the landlord told her she could move back to the property. We do not have the exact dates to confirm the period involved. It is of concern that the landlord has not provided the records to evidence the communications between the resident and landlord to ascertain when the landlord believed the property was ready for the resident to move back. The resident reported that this left her feeling distressed and she sought reassurance that the property was safe . Without landlord evidence and given the resident believes work remained outstanding and she did not feel safe to return to the property, we are unable to evidence when or if the property was fit for habitation. We expect landlord’s to be able to evidence important information and provide a clear audit of its actions. The landlord should refer to our Spotlight report: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM – May 2023) for best practice.
21. Due to the resident’s reports of safety concerns with the property, her belief that she cannot move back to the property and no evidence from the landlord to the contrary, the resident continues to request the landlord permanently move her.
22. In conclusion, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the temporary move due to its poor record keeping and the adverse impact caused to the resident during the uncertainty of the duration of her stay in temporary accommodation. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation for adverse impact caused to her during her stay at the temporary accommodation.

Permanent move

23. A permanent transfer move is managed under the council’s lettings policy or through a management transfer. There is some evidence to suggest the landlord gave the resident advice about a permanent move under its allocations policy.
24. The landlord states that it will consider a management transfer on an exceptional basis for households who are at risk of harm from someone who does not live in the same home. As the criteria did not apply in the resident’s case, it was appropriate for it to provide her with advice on how to apply for a transfer through its lettings policy.
25. The lettings policy is managed by the council and is not a housing activity that is within our jurisdiction to investigate. This type of complaint is more appropriately dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. For these reasons we are unable to investigate the resident’s request for permanent rehousing.
26. We have made recommendations that the landlord contacts the resident to provide her with advice and support about her permanent rehousing request.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

27. The resident raised her complaint on 15 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 18 June 2024 and issued its Stage 1 response on 21 June 2024, 5 days later. This was appropriate and within the Complaint Handling Code’s (the Code’s) 10-working-day target.
28. The resident escalated her complaint, which the landlord acknowledged on 13 February 2025. It issued its Stage 2 response on 22 May 2025. The landlord could not meet the Code’s 20-working-day target for Stage 2, so it agreed an extension with the resident. The Code states an extension of 20 working days can be agreed with the resident in exceptional circumstances However, it was inappropriate that it delayed further in providing the response. The landlord did acknowledge the delay, apologised, and offered £50 compensation. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to put things right for the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord’s record keeping was poor in relation to the drainage work, inspections and lack of action plan, and the management of the temporary move. The landlord should review this case and ensure learning is implemented to improve its record keeping.

Communication

30. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. While it was positive it acknowledged this in its complaint response, it should ensure that lessons learnt are identified and implemented.