City of Westminster Council (202405157)

Decision
Case ID	202405157
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Westminster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	1 April 2026

Background

1. The resident reported several defects shortly after moving into the new build property in September 2023. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports and said that several issues remained outstanding. The resident also raised concerns about the delay in the landlord obtaining a traffic management order to manage parking on the estate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects in the property.
   2. The delay in arranging a traffic management order.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects in the property.
   2. The complaint about the delay in arranging a traffic management order is outside of our jurisdiction.
   3. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failures identified in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects in the property

5. The landlord failed to proactively manage the completion of works by the developer. While it acknowledged its failings and offered compensation, it failed to put things right in line with its stage 2 commitments.

The delay in arranging a traffic management order

6. The complaint about the landlord’s delay in arranging a traffic management order was not a complaint which relates to the actions or omissions of a landlord which, in our opinion, affected the resident in respect of her occupation of property.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

7. The landlord responded to the complaint outside of its policy timescales at both stages of its complaints process. It failed to track the follow up actions it had identified at stage 1. It recognised these failings and put things right by apologising and offering proportionate compensation for the impact caused.

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 provided by senior member of staff. 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 30 April 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £950 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of defects in the property. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid concerning the handling of the resident’s reports of defects in the property.	No later than 30 April 2026
	Write to the resident   The landlord must write to the resident setting out the appropriate contact for any outstanding concerns relating to defects previously addressed by the developer.	No later than 30 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £120 compensation as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of defects she reported since moving into the property in September 2023.
17 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It outlined the works completed to date. It upheld the complaint about the front door and cleanliness of the bathroom, toilet and carpets. It confirmed the developer would inspect the outstanding issues on 22 November 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience and frustration caused by the delay in addressing the resident’s concerns. It also apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered the resident £20 compensation.
25 January 2024	The resident escalated the complaint. She said that although the developer attended the property, it did not complete all the works. She listed the outstanding issues. The resident also reported missed appointments and poor communication.
13 March 2024	The landlord issued its final response. It outlined the repairs the developer had completed and listed the outstanding repairs the developer would complete on 13 March 2024. It apologised that some of the defects had still not been rectified and said it would discuss this with the developer. It upheld the complaint about delays, poor communication and multiple appointments failing to resolve the issues. It offered the resident £670 compensation broken down as follows: £300 for delays in completing effective repairs £250 for time and trouble in chasing up jobs and poor communication £120 (inclusive of the £20 it offered at stage 1) for complaint handling delays and failure to track agreed repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint because she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not resolved some of the issues raised at stage 2. The resident told us that her main concern relates to pipework in the bathroom. To put things right, the resident would like the issues to be resolved and to be compensated.

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 handling of the resident’s reports of defects in the property.
Finding	Maladministration

8. The resident reported multiple issues in the property shortly after moving to the property in September 2023. These included a leak from the downstairs toilet sink causing stains and a smell, damp under the kitchen sink, insecure front door and balcony locks, gaps under the kitchen units, and holes in the cupboards. She was worried these could attract pests.
9. The landlord acted reasonably at first by raising urgent jobs for the leak and lock issues. It attended on 26 September 2024, isolated the downstairs toilet water supply and said it replaced a gearbox in one of the locks. The resident disputed this and said the landlord had only oiled the locks. She said the front door lock remained loose. There is no evidence the landlord arranged follow‑up works, although it said it passed the issues to the developer.
10. Contracts for new buildings have defect liability periods within which the landlord can ask developers to repair any inherent defects that are discovered. As the property was a new build in the defect period, referring issues to the developer was reasonable. However, the landlord was still expected to take reasonable steps to ensure that the developers remedied the defects. There is no evidence it did so, despite the resident repeatedly chasing in October 2023. On 27 October 2023 the resident confirmed she remained unable to use the downstairs toilet because the water supply was still isolated. While this was not the only toilet in the property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the inconvenience this caused when coordinating repairs with the developer.
11. On 1 November 2023 the developer sealed plinths under the kitchen cupboards, but the resident said gaps remained and mice droppings were present. She also reported cracks near the entrance wall and terrace door. The landlord only responded after she chased. On 16 November 2023 it told her once again that it had passed the defects to the developer. The developer attended on 29 November 2023 to scope works, more than 2 months after the resident reported her first concerns. While the developer was responsible for the, we have not seen evidence that the landlord proactively monitored the reported defects to ensure they were addressed in a timely manner.
12. The developer carried out some repairs in December 2023. On 13 December 2023the resident listed the remaining issues, which she said the developer had not completed due to timing constraints. Discussions around the scope of works followed. The developer reported that a planned kitchen sink replacement on 23 December 2023 failed due to reported no access, which the resident disputed.
13. The resident queried progress on 12 January 2024. The next appointment to replace the sink on 22 January 2024 failed because the sink supplied was the wrong size. Dissatisfied with the progress of the works, the resident raised a complaint and listed the outstanding issues. It was unreasonable that she had to repeatedly remind the landlord of matters she had already raised. Although the landlord said it had passed the issues to the developer, it did not monitor progress or ensure works were being completed.
14. On 29 January 2024 the landlord took positive action by collating all outstanding issues into a spreadsheet. It arranged an inspection with the developer and surveyor for 16 February 2024 and noted that 17 issues were still outstanding. In its stage 2 response, the landlord set out the status of the repairs and confirmed an appointment for 13 March 2024. It said it was committed to ensuring all defects would be resolved on this date.
15. The resident reported that no one attended on 13 March 2024. She also disputed the landlord’s information regarding a loose bathroom panel, discoloured tiles and cracks near the front door. She chased 3 further times before the landlord responded on 11 April 2024 with an apology and a promise of a further update by 19 April 2024.
16. The landlord did not provide the promised update. Internal emails record the developer saying all defects were resolved, but the resident said this was not correct as she awaited updates. She chased again on 7 and 21 May 2024. The landlord responded on 29 May 2024 saying it believed all works were complete except for a pipe spacer, but there is no evidence showing how it verified this. In light of the number of defects and the previous complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm directly that all issues raised had been fully resolved.
17. The landlord offered a further visit. While the resident was dissatisfied given the number of previous visits, this was a reasonable next step to try to resolve the outstanding concerns. The resident said the landlord attended on 5 June 2024. The landlord has not supplied any records from this inspection or its previous visits. It would have been reasonable for it to record what issues remained outstanding and any agreed next steps. Its failure to do so placed an additional burden on the resident to chase progress of the works. The landlord confirmed that final works took place 2 October 2024. It advised the resident to raise new issues via the contact centre and directed her to a named staff member for queries relating to defects. The resident asked for the staff member’s email address. There is no evidence the landlord responded.
18. There is no evidence the resident raised further issues in relation to the defects after this date. However, the landlord’s records also do not conclusively show that all issues she reported since September 2023 had been satisfactorily resolved. While it provided evidence of completion for some of the defect repairs, it is unclear when others were addressed. This highlights further weaknesses in the landlord’s record keeping.
19. The resident recently told us she remained dissatisfied with a leak from the towel rack and a dripping noise in the bathroom, both of which she had raised before. She confirmed the developer repaired the towel rack before March 2024, and we have seen no evidence that she raised this issue again. The developer had also investigated the dripping noise and found no fault. Given the time that had elapsed between the landlord stating defects repairs had been completed and the resident later reporting concerns, we cannot conclude the defects remained unresolved and have not made orders for further works. However, we have ordered the landlord to write to the resident confirming whom she can contact in respect of any outstanding concerns. The resident also raised concerns about the quality of the kitchen sink. However, this did not form part of the original complaint and therefore does not form part of this investigation.
20. In summary, the landlord unreasonably delayed addressing the resident’s defect reports and did not effectively monitor the completion of works by the developer. This led to multiple unnecessary appointments, miscommunication about the scope of works and further inconvenience. The resident experienced additional time and trouble due to the landlord’s failure to manage and track repairs effectively.
21. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, works and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
22. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the above failings. It was reasonable that it offered compensation for the resident’s time and trouble because of the delays in completing the works. The landlord’s total offer of compensation was £550. It acted reasonably by setting out the outstanding repairs and confirming when it would complete them. It had set an appointment to do so on 13 March 2024.
23. Had the landlord followed through on the commitments in made at stage 2 of its complaints process, we would have likely made a finding of reasonable redress. However, it did not do so. Not only is there no evidence it attended the appointment, but it failed to address the outstanding issues for another 6 and a half months. During this time the resident continued to chase, and the landlord was slow to respond or failed to respond at all. It also stated that works had been completed without evidence that this was the case, which likely added to the resident’s distress.
24. While the landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £950 compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified by our investigation. This is inclusive of the £550 it had offered in its stage 2 response.

Complaint	The delay in arranging a traffic management order.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

25. We can only consider complaints which relate to the actions or omissions of a landlord which, in our opinion, have affected the resident in respect of their occupation of property. The tenancy agreement does not make provision for parking on the estate. Therefore, any act or omission by the landlord in respect of parking does not affect the resident in respect of her occupation of the property. As such, we have no power to investigate this complaint.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

26. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the March 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the April 2024 Code.
27. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 4 working days outside of its policy timescale and its stage 1 response 12 working days outside of its timescale. As part of its stage 2 response, it acknowledged that it failed to track progress of repairs agreed at stage 1 of its complaints process. It apologised to the resident and offered her £120 compensation for the impact of its failings. This was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there have been failures which adversely affected the resident.
28. The landlord said it would review the status of the actions agreed at stage 2 to ensure progression. This demonstrated some learning from the outcome of the complaint. We have addressed its failure to implement this as part of our investigation into the substantive issue and set out further learning below.

Learning

29. Landlords should monitor completion of any defects referred to the developer. They should also have effective systems in place to track the progress of any actions agreed within their complaint responses.
30. It is good practice for landlords to set out clear expectations as to the likely timescales for completion of such works, depending on the priority of them.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. Landlords should keep records of all inspections, findings and agreed actions. The landlord may find it helpful to consider the recommendations set out in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) published in May 2023.

Communication

32. Landlords should proactively update residents regarding any changes to timescales previously advised and set realistic expectations when delays occur.
33. Where a landlord requires additional time to investigate a complaint, it should notify the resident of the revised timescales, in line with the provisions of the Code.