City of Westminster Council (202524395)

Background

1. At the time of the complaint the resident was subletting the property. During October 2024 he contacted the landlord to report a leak coming from the property above. He claimed against its building insurance for damage caused to the inside of the property. The claim was resolved, but he had to pay the £250 excess.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the insurance excess following his report of a leak.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the insurance excess following his report of a leak.

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

Reasons

4. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend to urgent works within 1 to 7 working days.
5. On 24 October 2024 the resident reported a leak from the property above. The landlord’s repairs logs say it attempted to gain access to both properties. It was unable to do so therefore, it closed the repair. There’s no evidence that it considered what further action it could take to resolve the issue. For example, trying to contact either party using alternative methods. It’s inaction caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who contacted the landlord again on 29 October 2024 to seek an update. The repair logs show it booked an appointment for 5 November 2024. It attended and identified a leak from the bath waste which it repaired that day. Its response was in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
6. During June and July 2025 the resident contacted the landlord to say that the leak was caused by its failure to maintain the bath in the property above. Therefore, he felt that he should not have to incur the cost of the insurance excess. The landlord’s records show that the bath was cast iron and needed to be replaced. However, we’ve not seen any evidence that it could have foreseen the leak or that it was the result of an act or omission by the landlord. Therefore, while we acknowledge the resident’s frustration, the landlord’s response that it could not reimburse the excess was reasonable.
7. However, we do not agree with the landlord’s complaint responses which said there was no failure in its response to the leak. As set out above, it prematurely closed the original repair, causing distress and inconvenience. We have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation which is in line with our compensation guidance where the failure was of short duration.

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.