City of Westminster Council (202528228)

Decision
Case ID	202528228
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Westminster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Flexible Tenancy
Date	22 May 2026

Background

The resident lives in a third floor flat. The landlord has vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems due to limited mobility and anxiety. Due to her mobility issue, she relied on a lift to be able to access her property. She reported faults with the lift to the landlord. It took action to resolve the problem. The resident raised her complaint as she was unhappy it was unable to repair faults to the lift in the block and it did not fully consider her circumstances.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the lift at the resident’s block of flats.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the lift at the resident’s block of flats.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to repairing the lift was delayed. Its communication was not effective, and the resident had to chase it for answers. Its complaint responses recognised this. However, its offer of compensation did not reflect the detriment to the resident.
The landlord’s compensation was reasonable for its stage 2 delays. However, it did not raise a new complaint when the resident brought new issues after she had escalated her complaint.

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 a senior manager. 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 19 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 compensation made up as follows: £270 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of repairs to the lift at the resident’s block of flats. £330 its stage 2 response offered for its failures in its handling of repairs to the lift at the resident’s block of flats. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of the resident’s complaint. £50 its stage 2 response offered the resident for its complaint handling delays.	No later than 19 June 2026
3	Case review order The landlord must complete its review of its handling of its repairs to the lift, which it informed us of. It should incorporate our findings into its review. The resulting report must be shared with the resident and us. Its report should set out: Whether the learning it took from the resident’s complaint has been effective. What measures it can put in place to support residents should it receive any similar future complaints.	No later than 19 June 2026
4	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss her concerns about the lift. It should confirm what steps it has taken to ensure the lift’s reliability and whether it has fully repaired the lift. It must also contact her to discuss if she wants it to raise a new complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation it offered her.	No later than 19 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Should the landlord find further failures upon completing its case review, it is recommended it should review the amount of compensation offered to the resident in line with the guidelines of its compensation policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 July 2025	The resident raised her complaint with the landlord. She said she was fed up with the lift at her block of flats breaking down and it had not taken the initiative to resolve the problem. This had left her being emotionally and physically tired and she did not want its senior complaints officer to investigate the matter as they caused her stress.
24 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said: The level of service it provided to repair the lift over the previous 6 months was below its expected standards. It was sorry for the challenges this had caused the resident. It had arranged for a senior engineer to inspect the lift, and it would monitor performance after they had done this. Its complaints process could not investigate complaints about its staff. This was a confidential internal process. She would need to complete a housing application form if she wanted to move properties. It had assigned a single point of contact for her. It upheld her complaint, as things did not happen as they should have. Some of its service failures had caused her avoidable time and trouble.
11 August 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord should have resolved the matter a year before. She did not trust it to resolve the issue and on occasions she had to stay away from her property because the lift did not work.
24 October 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: Between 18 July 2024 and 18 September 2025 there had been double the amount of expected call outs to the lift. These breakdowns had caused the resident inconvenience due to her mobility issues, which it was sorry about. It was clear from the resident’s account that it did not fully investigate the lift problem at the basement level. On 16 September 2025 it found the faults in the lift and eliminated them. However, before it could confirm it had fixed a problem with the lift serving the basement it found a further problem. This resulted in the lift being shut down on 18 September 2025. It offered her temporary accommodation due to the lift shutdown. She told it that the accommodation was not suitable and raised a separate complaint about this. It was investigating this matter as a service request so it would not consider this as part of its complaint response. It ordered further parts for the repair to the lift and completed its repair on 15 October 2025. It was sorry its delays caused the resident inconvenience and physical hardship. Its communication with her was insufficient. It upheld her complaint and offered her £380 compensation made up as follows: £80 for 4 repairs it did not complete within its agreed timeframe. £250 for its failure to keep her updated on its repairs to the lift. £50 for complaint handling failures. It would improve its communication and response times to repairs. It would take steps to improve the specifications and maintenance requirements of lift inspections on newly built developments. It would introduce a lift task and finish group to work with residents to help it review how it manages lifts. It could not consider her request to move properties within the scope of her complaint. However, given the problems she faced with the lift it would reconsider this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said: The lift issue was ongoing. She felt ignored by the landlord’s housing officer, who had been off work. She felt they should have put an out of office notification on their email. The landlord had refused to provide temporary accommodation for all her household. As a result, she paid for hotel rooms herself, as she felt there was no other option. Although the landlord offered to refund her hotel room costs, it had not done so, as she did not want to give it a copy of her bank statements. She felt the landlord did not fully consider her circumstances.

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	Lift repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not consider

The resident has said that she wanted the landlord to pay her compensation for loss of earnings. Whilst we can make orders for a landlord to pay compensation to the complainant, we do not have the authority to order reimbursement of legal fees or compensate for loss of income. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts or an insurance claim.
The resident said she wanted the landlord to offer her another property, as an outcome to her complaint. However, it is not appropriate for us to order a landlord to rehouse a resident. The way the landlord allocates its social housing is governed by its allocation policy which decides the priority of applicants on its waiting list. We are unable to make orders that could cause an adverse impact on other individuals who may have a higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties.
The resident raised concerns with the landlord about the suitability of temporary accommodation it offered her, after it shut down the lift. However, the issue was after she had escalated her complaint. As the landlord did not investigate this at stage 2 it would not be fair for us to consider this matter. The resident would need to raise the matter as a new complaint.

What we did consider

The landlord’s records show it attended a repair to the lift on 20 February 2025. It was unable to complete its repair as it needed a technician to attend with a specialist testing tool. The technician completed the repair the next day. This was reasonable.
Further repair visits by the landlord on 31 March, 2 April and 14 August 2025 identified the need for a technician to visit with a specialist tool. Its records show a technician completed the testing on 8 September 2025. However, this was 112 working days after it found the need for a specialist test. It is not clear the reason for this delay. However, the delay was unreasonable and a failure to follow its repairs policy. This says it will hold repairs information through its contractors and housing management systems to provide an accurate and clear record of its work and decisions.
Between 20 April and 18 October 2025, the landlord’s records show an engineer completed 7 routine service inspections of the lift. The engineer’s report’s show the lift passed its service with no further comments. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord believed there was no further issue with the lift upon receipt of the engineer’s reports.
The landlord’s evidence shows it logged reports of the lift being faulty between the engineer’s visits on 17 March, 27 June, 4 July, 6 July, 27 July and 19 August 2025. Its records show it attended on 4 July 2025 in response to the repair raised on 27 June 2025. Its stage 2 response said there were 3 other reports from 18 July 2024 it did not respond to within its immediate response time of 2 hours. The repair records the landlord has provided us are for 2025 only. However, it was reasonable it offered £80 compensation. This was in line with its compensation policy that says it will pay £20 compensation for each missed appointment.
The landlord’s records show it responded to all other repairs within 24 hours and restored the lift to use. This was reasonable. However, these reports of problems with the lift contradicted the engineer’s reports. There is no record it investigated this conflicting information. This was a failure to follow its repairs policy that says it will work closely and collaboratively with its contractors.
The landlord’s evidence does not show it updated the resident on its progress to repair the lift. This was not reasonable and caused her inconvenience. She chased it for answers on 7 July, 11 July and 15 September 2025. The landlord’s stage 2 response recognised its communication with her was poor. Its offer of £250 compensation for this was reasonable and in line with our compensation guidance for failures that adversely affected the resident.
The landlord found a serious problem with the lift on 18 September 2025. This meant it had to shut the lift as it needed to complete urgent repairs. Its repairs involved pumping water from the lift pit, a specialist inspection and ordering of parts to complete the repair. The lift remained out of service until 15 October 2025. The landlord’s repairs charter says it will complete urgent repairs within 7 days. However, given the complexity of the repairs it is understandable it did not meet this timeframe.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 September 2025. She asked it to provide her with temporary accommodation because the lift was out of order. The landlord agreed to the resident’s request. Although she raised concerns about the suitability of the accommodation, it was reasonable the landlord offered it to her.
The resident told us that the landlord agreed to provide temporary accommodation for her and 1 of her children. Its offer did not include the rest of her household. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence to confirm this or that it discussed this with the resident. However, it told us it had limited records relating to its offer of temporary accommodation, and it “did not handle the process in a way which reflected the impact on the resident.” It was reasonable the landlord acknowledged this. However, there is no evidence that it followed its temporary accommodation procedure that says it will consider the personal support needs of the resident.
The landlord’s evidence shows the resident’s reports included concerns the lift was faulty from the basement level at the block of flats. These related to a fault with the weight the lift could handle. As a result, she was unable to take her shopping in the lift. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the problem became more frequent and it did not investigate the matter until August 2025. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged its handling of repairs to the lift was not effective. It offered the resident a single point of contact and identified learning from her complaint which was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle of learning from outcomes. This was reasonable. However, its compensation offer was not in line with its compensation policy. This says it will offer between £600 and £1000 for service failures that have gone on for a long period of time which has had a significant impact on residents. The evidence shows the landlord’s response adversely affected the resident. It told us it accepted its delays caused “prolonged hardship” to the resident. For this reason, along with the further failures we have found we have made a finding of maladministration.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £600 compensation. This is in line with its compensation policy. The landlord has told us on 26 March 2026 it was completing a review of the resident’s complaint. Its review would consider the learning its stage 2 response identified, and it would complete this within 8 weeks. We have ordered the landlord to consider the findings of our investigation in its review. We have also ordered it to contact the resident to discuss her concerns about the lift. This is because she had told us the lift is still faulty.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales to acknowledge and respond to residents’ complaints.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at both stages within 5 working days. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord told the resident on 8 September 2025 it needed to extend its stage 2 investigation. It explained the reasons for this to the resident and said it would respond by 30 September 2025. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy which says it will tell resident’s the reason for its extension and revised date for responding.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 24 October 2025. This was over its revised timeframe, which was not reasonable. However, it identified this failure and offered the resident £50 compensation. This was reasonable and in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures that adversely affected the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 response told the resident it did not consider her concerns about the suitability of temporary accommodation. It said it was investigating this as a service request. We acknowledge the evidence shows the landlord took steps to resolve the temporary accommodation matter. However, the Code says where a landlord has issued its stage 1 response, the new issues raised are unrelated to the issues already being investigated or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint. This was a complaint handling failure and a failure to follow the Code.
We have made a finding of service failure. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her a further £50 compensation. We have also ordered it to contact the resident to discuss if she wants to raise a new complaint about her concerns of the suitability of the temporary accommodation it offered her.

Learning

The landlord’s complaint responses show it used its complaints process as a learning tool to improve the service it offers.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We found record keeping failures in the landlord’s response to the issue the resident raised. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

Landlords should ensure that residents are kept updated throughout the repairs process. This manages resident expectations and can strengthen relationships.