Westminster Community Homes Limited (202422536)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422536

Westminster Community Homes Limited

2 October 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Drainage issues outside his property.
2. A leak in July 2024, causing damage to his kitchen.
3. Damp, mould, silverfish and a sewage smell in his bathroom.
4. Increased energy costs due to a loss of communal heating.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is the landlord’s tenant. He holds an assured shorthold tenancy with a fixed term of 5 years to qualify for the landlord’s intermediate rent scheme. This scheme also provides qualifying tenants with a financial contribution towards purchasing a home after the tenancy ends. The resident’s tenancy started in December 2020. He occupies a flat within a block (the property) which has a communal heating system. The property is on the first floor and is accessed from an outside walkway shared with his neighbours.
The resident reported to the landlord on 24 January 2023 that the drain serving the walkway outside his flat was blocked. It cleared the drain In February 2023.
On 12 December 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that he had no heating. Its repairs log noted that the heating was turned off because of a leak in a neighbouring flat above, and it had given him a temporary heater the same day.
The resident complained the landlord on 21 December 2023. He said the walkway outside his and his neighbour’s properties continued to flood despite the landlord’s repairs. The resident also reported that there was a persistent bad smell from behind a panel in his bathroom, which was damp and attracted silverfish. He also highlighted that the work to the leak in the flats above him had lasted 3 weeks already and had caused him excess fuel costs in having to run the temporary heater. The landlord restored the resident’s heating on 16 January 2024.
On 24 February 2024 the resident asked the landlord to compensate him for his energy costs for running the temporary heater. It responded on 1 March 2024 to suggest he make a complaint to recover his costs.
The landlord issued its initial complaint response to the resident on 28 May 2024, which referred to a conversation with him on 15 April 2024. It said it had no note of him reporting the external drainage issues before. The landlord said it had responded to another neighbour’s report about the drainage and found it needed to access other properties to investigate the issue. However, it had been unable to gain access and said it would continue to investigate.
The landlord said the resident had not reported the issues in his bathroom previously. It confirmed it did not treat silverfish but would inspect the bathroom on 3 June 2024. It noted the resident felt a newly installed extractor fan in his property was not working properly and said it would also inspect this on 3 June 2024.
The landlord acknowledged that the heating repairs and drainage issues had taken a long time to resolve. It offered the resident £550 compensation for delays, distress and inconvenience arising from the loss of distress and inconvenience and £102.50 for his use of the temporary heater. The landlord also recognised its stage 1 complaint response was late and offered £60 compensation for this.
The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord on 18 June 2024. He disputed that access issues were the reason that the exterior drainage remained unresolved. The resident was unhappy that the landlord would not treat the silverfish and said that damp and mould in the bathroom was affecting his health. He said the compensation offered for the loss of heating did not fully address his expenses and inconvenience. The resident added that during this time, the landlord’s contractors had inspected his property and broken the valve on his radiator, which had not been fixed. The resident asked the landlord to review the intermediate rent scheme he was on as he felt the benefits had not kept up with rising costs. To resolve his complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to fix the leaks or rehouse him.
On 25 July 2024, the resident experienced a leak into his kitchen from above. The landlord attended and disconnected part of the electrics, leaving the resident unable to use his washing machine.
The landlord booked an appointment for 13 August 2024 to fix the electrics. The appointment was cancelled as on 8 August 2024 the resident told the landlord he had arranged for a private electrician to repair the electrics.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 14 August 2024. It said:
1. It acknowledged that it had not addressed the root causes of the leak in the kitchen or flooding on the walkways.
2. It would arrange an inspection of the damp and mould and the associated silverfish.
3. The extractor fan would cost 20p per day to run, which it considered to be a fair cost.
4. It would extend the resident’s 5-year tenancy by 2 years.
5. The resident could contact its liability insurer and make a negligence claim if he wished to.
The landlord offered compensation of:
1. £100.00 for the delay to its stage 1 response
2. £350 for continued delays and the impact to the resident and his family.
3. £350 for continued distress and inconvenience
4. £150 discretionary payment to cover costs incurred for an electrician
5. £150 for use of temporary heaters.
6. £338.00 discretionary payment for cleaning products purchased after flooding
7. £240.00 payment for hot food purchases when he was unable to use the kitchen facilities when the electrics were shut down.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord’s attempts to “jet clean” the walkways did not work, and it continued to get flooded regularly. He confirmed the landlord had fixed the leak affecting the kitchen but there was still staining and cracks on the walls and ceilings in his property. He reported that there was a bent wooden panel covering the pipework in the bathroom which he had to block to stop the infestation of silverfish and bad smell.
The landlord’s records show that it carried out a damp and mould survey at the resident’s property in January 2025. The survey report noted that the damp was related to a leak and there were no mould related issues at the time of the inspection.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported that there was a further leak affecting his property in September 2024 and he has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs following this leak as well as an asbestos survey which took place in November 2024. In line with our scheme, it is our role to investigate matters which the landlord has had the opportunity to consider through its complaints policy. We can investigate whether the landlord followed through with any actions it committed to in its complaint responses, but we will not consider any other specific events which took place after the end of the complaints process. The resident can raise a new complaint to the landlord if he wants to, about the more recent issues. If he remains dissatisfied once the new complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, he may be able to refer it to our service for a separate investigation.
The resident said that the damp and mould in the property affected his health. We acknowledge his account. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can pose a risk to health, and we can consider this general risk. However, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to determine if there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any negative effect on his household’s health. This is better suited to a personal injury claim through the courts or through liability insurance. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making such a claim if he wishes to pursue this. We will, however, consider if any failings by the landlord led to him experiencing distress and inconvenience as well as the landlord’s response to his health concerns.
The resident has said that the drainage problem affecting the shared walkway lasted 3 years. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which were not made to the landlord within a reasonable period of time. This would normally be within 12 months of the issue arising. This is because, as time passes, staff may change and records may not be complete, therefore it is not possible to make a reliable determination on historical events. In line with the Scheme, this investigation has considered events from December 2022 onwards. This is 12 months before the resident first attempted to raise a formal complaint with the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues outside his property

The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for maintaining the exterior of the property, including the drains. Therefore, the landlord was expected to respond to the resident’s reports of flooding from the drains in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord’s repairs policy lists the following timescales for repairs:
1. Immediate – repair issues which pose an immediate risk to safety – to be attended within 2 hours and made safe within 24 hours.
2. Urgent – Works that do not pose an immediate threat or safety risk but negatively impact on an occupant’s access to utilities or need repair such as blocked sink, bath or basin – to be completed within 7 days.
3. Routine – Work that poses no threat to occupants and/or may require substantial repairs – to be completed within 28 working days.
The evidence we have seen shows a report that the drainage gully outside the resident’s neighbours’ properties was flooding the communal walkway in January 2023 and the landlord attended in February 2023 to clear the drains. This was a reasonable response in line with its repairs timescales, and the landlord was entitled to consider that the problem was resolved until it was reported again in December 2023.
Following the report in December 2023, the landlord attended to fix the drains on 4 April 2023. This was outside its published timescale of 28 working days for routine repairs. The landlord has not explained the reason for the delay, so we can only conclude it was unreasonable. The landlord was unable to fix the drain as it needed access to a neighbour’s property to complete the repair. The neighbour was not available at the time, so the landlord contacted them to arrange an alternative appointment. At the time of the final complaint response, the landlord was continuing to make efforts to access the neighbouring property. Due to confidentiality, we will not include specific details of the steps the landlord took to gain access to the neighbouring property, but we are satisfied it was making reasonable efforts to gain access based on the evidence we have seen.
The landlord took legal action against the neighbour in early 2025 and following this it secured an injunction to complete the necessary drainage repairs. Legal action can be a lengthy process, and the landlord would be expected to show the court that it had made reasonable efforts to gain access informally before applying for an injunction. Although the delay would have been inconvenient for the resident, the evidence suggests that the landlord was taking appropriate steps to resolve the flooding.
The resident has raised concerns that the landlord jet washing the drainage gully caused damage to the communal pipework which led to further leaks. We note the landlord’s concerns about the method used to unblock the drains, but the landlord was entitled to rely on opinions of its qualified contractors concerning what work was needed to fix the drainage issue. However, this is clearly a longstanding issue and it would be reasonable at this point for the landlord to carry out a survey of the drainage to establish whether there are any further works needed to address the underlying cause of the flooding and prevent it from continuing in future, We will therefore recommend that the landlord carries out a drainage survey and shares the result of this with all affected residents.

Extension of the resident’s tenancy

As a resolution to his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to either fix the leaks affecting his property or move him to another property within its intermediate rent scheme. In its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed that the resident could bid for alternative properties within the intermediate rent scheme run by itself and other providers. The landlord confirmed that if the resident was successful in bidding for a property with another provider, he would lose his contributions under the intermediate rent scheme for this current property. The resident decided not to move as he expressed that he was concerned about losing the contributions he had made under the current scheme. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to support the resident with a move to another property and it was appropriate for it to explain how this would affect his contributions. Whilst we acknowledge that there were significant repair issues affecting the resident’s current property, the landlord was not obliged to change the terms of conditions of the scheme so that the resident could move without affecting his contributions.
In its final complaint response, the landlord committed to extending the resident’s tenancy by 2 years. The resident has provided evidence to us to show that his tenancy was extended by 1 year. The letter explains that the landlord has offered extensions to all tenants in the scheme so that their tenancy can be renewed every 3 years, up to 9 years in total. The resident had less than one year left of his 5-year tenancy left at the time when it was extended. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to extend the tenancy by one year at that point, bringing the total length to 6 years. The resident has the option to renew the tenancy by another 3 years at the end of the 6-year term. Therefore, although the landlord did not extend the tenancy by 2 years as it said it would in its final complaint response, it acted reasonably by extending it by one year with the option of a further extension. The landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the drainage issues outside the property causing leaks into the resident’s property.
Our approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards in the range of £100 to £600 where there have been failings by the landlord which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, but there may be no permanent impact from the failings. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of each complaint. I line with the remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation for the initial delay in its response to the drainage issue following his report in December 2023.

Leak in the kitchen in July 2024

As part of his complaint, the resident has said that the drainage issues caused leaks into his property. He reported a leak in July 2024, and the landlord attended the next day, in line with its repairs policy’s timescale for emergency repairs. The resident was not available for the next scheduled appointment, so the landlord booked an appointment for 29 July 2024. The resident reported that the plumber was unable to fix the leak and shut off electricity to the kitchen. Overall, the landlord’s initial response to the leak was appropriate as it booked repairs within a reasonable timeframe. We understand that having multiple appointments would have been inconvenient for the resident. However, it can take multiple attempts to fix a leak, and this is not necessarily evidence of failure by the landlord.
The landlord is responsible for maintaining the electricity supply at the resident’s property. When the electricity in the kitchen was disconnected on 29 July 2024 following the leak, the landlord acted appropriately by booking an appointment to reinstate it. The resident cancelled the appointment because it was too long to wait and arranged a private electrician to reconnect the electricity.
The loss of electricity in the kitchen would not be regarded as an emergency, because it did not pose an immediate risk to safety. However, it should have been treated as an urgent repair because it significantly affected the resident’s ability to use the utilities in the property. The landlord booked an appointment outside its 7-day timescale for urgent repairs and therefore it was reasonable for the resident to arrange a private electrician to attend sooner. It was appropriate that the landlord offered to refund the cost of the private electrician in its stage 2 complaint response.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for the additional food costs the resident incurred due to the lack of electricity in the kitchen. Overall, the landlord’s offer of reimbursement was reasonable, and it is not required to pay additional compensation in respect of this aspect of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of the leak which happened in July 2024.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, silverfish and a sewage smell in his bathroom

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will:
1. visit to diagnose and book any treatment within 3 working days, subject to the resident’s availability,
2. arrange a mould wash treatment to be carried out within 10 working days of the inspection, or at the resident’s convenience.
3. ensure the case is dealt with within 20 working days or sooner if it is an emergency
The resident reported damp and a sewage smell in his bathroom to the landlord in December 2023. We have not seen evidence that the landlord took any action following this report until its stage 1 complaint response in May 2024. The landlord has said it spoke to the resident in April 2024, but we have not seen a record of this call so we cannot confirm what was discussed. The landlord failed to recognise, in its stage 1 complaint response, that it should have attended the resident’s property within 28 working days, in line with its repairs policy. This was a failing.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it would carry out a survey of the damp and mould. The landlord’s records show the survey took place in January 2025, over a year after the resident first raised the issue. This was significantly outside the landlord’s damp and mould policy which says it will arrange an inspection within 3 days of a report of damp and mould. This delay was unacceptable and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as he was living with damp and mould for a long time without any investigation into its cause.
The landlord’s survey did not find any damp and mould and confirmed that the leak affecting the resident’s property was fixed. Based on this, it was reasonable for the landlord not to take any further action to address the damp and mould. We understand that there was a further leak which caused additional damage to the resident’s property, however as explained above, our investigation is limited to actions which the landlord committed to in its complaint responses, and we have not considered later events.
During the complaints process, on 16 August 2024, the landlord confirmed it would repaint the resident’s kitchen ceiling, which was damaged by the leak in July 2024. The landlord’s records suggest the kitchen ceiling was redecorated, although the exact date when this happened is not clear. The resident has told us that there are still cracks and staining on the kitchen ceiling and walls. It is not clear from the evidence provided whether the staining and cracks were caused by the leak in July 2024 or the more recent leaks. therefore, we cannot confirm whether the landlord was at fault for not completing the recordation to a reasonable standard after the July 2024 leak. However, we recommend that the landlord should carry out an inspection in view of the resident’s reports of cracks and staining. If it identifies that there is further work needed to repair and repaint the kitchen ceiling and walls damaged by leaks, it should carry out this work in line with its published repair timescales.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £338.00 compensation towards the cost of cleaning after the leak. It was appropriate that the landlord reimbursed the resident for these costs.

Silverfish infestation

In December 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there were silverfish in his property which were believed to be related to the damp in the bathroom. The landlord initially refused to treat the silverfish. This was in line with its pest control policy, which does not mention silverfish as one of the pests the landlord is responsible for treating. The landlord has also provided a statement from a Senior Pest Control Officer explaining it does not provide pest control for silverfish because they are not considered to be a public health pest.
It was reasonable for the landlord to say it would not treat the silverfish as residents are usually responsible for resolving pest issues affecting their own properties. Although landlords should carry out pest control in communal areas or within individual properties when multiple properties are affected in the block. However, as the landlord said in its final response to the complaint that it would treat the silverfish, it should have followed up on this commitment. The resident has said he has spent approximately £100 on pest control products to treat the silverfish infestation. The landlord should reimburse him for these costs.

Extractor fan

In December 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that his newly installed extractor fan in the bathroom was not working as well as the previous one. He said the fan had to be left on all the time to combat the damp and mould.
The landlord inspected the fan on 3 June 2024. This inspection was significantly delayed and not in line with the landlord’s published repair timescales. It is not clear from the evidence provided what the outcome of this inspection was. However, there were no follow on works and the landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that the fan costs 20p per day to run which is a reasonable cost. Therefore, it appears the landlord concluded that the fan was working appropriately and did not need any further action. The landlord could have make its position clearer in its complaint response, but it was entitled to rely on its contractor’s opinion that the fan was functioning correctly and we have not seen evidence to show this was incorrect.
In correspondence following the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident has said he had to purchase a second fan for the living room to help eradicate the smell from the bathroom. We have considered this additional cost when assessing the landlord’s offer of compensation as well as the other costs the resident said he incurred in applying sealant to the bath panel to help reduce the smell.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered a total of £700 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its errors. The landlord did not specify how much of this compensation related to the various complaint points the resident had raised. Therefore, we have assessed how much we would have awarded for each issue if the landlord had not made any offer and compared this to the landlord’s total offer to review if it is reasonable.
We have assessed that the landlord offered £350 for distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the damp, mould, silverfish and a sewage smell in his bathroom. Taking into account the additional costs the resident says he incurred for products to mask the smell, an additional fan for the living room, sealant for the bathroom etc this amount is not sufficient to fully recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the significant delay in assessing the damp and mould and the costs he incurred in managing the problem himself. We will order the landlord to pay an additional £200 compensation, bringing the total to £550 for this aspect of the complaint.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould, silverfish and a sewage smell in his bathroom. It is positive that it offered compensation in an effort to put things right but its compensation payment should have been higher, it also should have also followed through with its offer to carry out pest control treatment of the silverfish. The landlord should reimburse the resident for the costs he incurred in carrying out this treatment himself.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of increased energy costs due to a loss of communal heating

In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the heating system serving the resident’s property.
On 6 December 2023, there was a leak at a neighbouring property which affected the communal heating system and resulted in the resident and his neighbours losing heating. The landlord provided the affected residents with temporary heating, which was reasonable.
The landlord arranged a survey on 19 December 2023 which identified that there was asbestos in a neighbouring property which needed to be removed before the heating system could be reinstated. The asbestos was removed on 8 January 2024. it was appropriate for the landlord to remove the asbestos before reinstating the heating as it had a responsibility to protect the residents in the building and its contractors and staff from potential asbestos exposure. The asbestos removal should have been treated as an urgent repair, but it was reasonable that it took a couple of weeks to organise given the likely impact of the Christmas break on the contractor’s service. The asbestos needed to be removed by a specialist contractor and the landlord had to wait for them to be available before proceeding with the heating repairs.
However, the landlord should have arranged the survey sooner given that the residents were without heating during winter and the landlord has not explained the reason for the delay, which was a failing. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will provide heating charge refunds to resident when the communal heating system is unavailable during the heating season and is unavailable for more than 3 days in a row. The policy also says the landlord will reimburse the resident for increased electrical costs arising from using alternative heating methods for more than 3 days in a row. This is at a rate of £2.50 per heater per day.
The resident asked the landlord for reimbursement of his energy costs on 24 February 2024. It was unreasonable that the landlord told the resident to raise a complaint to get reimbursed without acknowledging that he had already done so. The landlord should have responded to this request in line with its compensation policy, without the resident needing to raise a further complaint. However, it was positive that the landlord offered the resident £102.50 for the extra cost of using the temporary heaters in its final complaint response. This amount was in line with its compensation policy.
The resident has said that the additional electricity used to power the temporary heaters cost more than the compensation the landlord offered. He has provided photos of the reading of his electricity meter for the months when he was without central heating as evidence of this. Electricity costs vary due to a number of factors, particularly the time of year. Therefore, the readings the resident has provided as not sufficient in themselves to demonstrate the additional cost of the electricity to run the temporary heaters. If the resident can provide electricity bills for the same period the year before the heating shut down and the period of the heating shut down, showing the difference in usage and the cost of this then the landlord should review its position and consider paying additional compensation if there is a significant difference in what it has paid so far and the actual cost the resident incurred from using temporary heaters. The landlord should explain its decision to the resident in writing, including a breakdown of its calculations.
As set out above, the landlord did not specify how much of its total compensation offer for distress and inconvenience related to the loss of heating. We have allocated £350 from the total of £700 as compensation for delays, distress and inconvenience arising from errors in its handling of the resident’s loss of heating. We would have awarded a similar amount for this issue if the landlord had not made an offer and therefore, we will not ask the landlord to increase its offer. This compensation is in line with our remedies guidance, as set out above. For this reason, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of increased energy costs due to a loss of communal heating.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord has a complaints procedure which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). All landlords that are members of our scheme must follow the Code which sets out our expectations for effective complaint handling. The Code says a landlord should have a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. At stage 1 the landlord should provide a written response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. At the final stage, the Code says the landlord should respond within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. If the landlord is unable to meet these timeframes it should contact the resident to explain why and agree an extension if it requires more than 10 more working days to respond.
The resident raised his stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 21 December 2023. The landlord responded to the complaint on 28 May 2024. This was 5 months later and was an excessive delay. The landlord failed to act in line with its policy or the Code. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered £60 compensation. It increased the compensation to £100 at stage 2. Whilst it is positive that the landlord tried to put things right for the resident, its offer of compensation did not go far enough as it did not include compensation for the further delay at stage 2 of its complaints process. This additional delay would have added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. To put this right for the resident, it should pay him an additional £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience, bringing the total compensation for complaint handling to £200, taking into account the landlord’s previous offers. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance, as set out above in this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould, silverfish and a sewage smell in the resident’s bathroom.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Drainage issues outside the property causing leaks into the resident’s property.
2. The associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves concerns about the:
1. Leak in July 2024, causing damage to the resident’s kitchen.
2. Increased energy costs due to a loss of communal heating.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to pay the following compensation within 4 weeks of this decision, providing evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so by the same date:
1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in it repairing the drainage issue.
2. £100 to reimburse the resident for the cost of pest control products to treat the silverfish infestation.
3. £550 for distress and inconvenience caused by errors in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, silverfish and a sewage smell in the resident’s bathroom. The landlord’s earlier offer of £350 can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
4. £200 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling. The landlord’s earlier offer of £100 can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord:
1. Carries out an inspection of communal drainage and walkways. The landlord should share the findings of the inspection with the resident and other affected residents. If the landlord identifies that any works are required to the drainage, it should confirm what works it will do and the estimated timescale for these.
2. Carries out an inspection of the resident’s kitchen walls and ceiling. If the landlord identifies that any repairs are needed to these areas, it should carry out the repairs within 28 working days in line with its published repairs timescale for routine repairs.
3. Reviews its position if the resident can provide electricity bills for the same period the year before the heating shut down and the period of the heating shut down, showing the difference in usage and the cost of this. The landlord should consider paying additional compensation if there is a significant difference in what it has paid so far and the actual cost the resident incurred from using temporary heaters. The landlord should explain its decision to the resident in writing, including a breakdown of its calculations.
4. Pays the compensation it offered at stage 2 of its complaints process, unless this has already been paid. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the leak in July 2024, and increased energy costs due to a loss of communal heating is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.