City of Westminster Council (202421817)

Decision
Case ID	202421817
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Westminster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	3 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident lives in a property which has a shower cubicle and no bath. The landlord’s records say the resident is vulnerable because she has arthritis and there are young children in the household. The resident reported that the electric shower was faulty and there were leaks affecting the bathroom.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of:
   1. Bathroom repairs.
   2. The complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord’s overall approach to the repairs was unreasonable. It did not complete repairs to the shower cubicle and flooring in line with the timescales set out in its tenant’s handbook. It also took 30 working days to replace the shower although it committed to doing so within 7 working days due to the resident’s vulnerabilities. It did not maintain adequate records of its actions and decision making, and its communication with the resident was poor.
6. The landlord did not thoroughly investigate the resident’s 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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 31 March 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £280 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays completing the repairs £100 for its handling of the complaint £120 offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response. 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 £120 (the amount offered in its stage 2 response) from the total figure if this has already been paid to the resident.	No later than 31 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord reviews its record keeping practices and procedures.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 June 2024	The resident complained about outstanding repairs in the bathroom.
25 June 2024	In its stage 1 response the landlord said: it did not uphold the complaint because it attended within the required timescales and carried out a temporary repair to the shower tray it would replace the shower tray and the bathroom flooring on 1 July 2024.
24 July 2024	The resident escalated the complaint. She said: when the landlord attended on 3 July 2024 it did not know what work it needed to do, then left to collect parts but did not return the landlord said it would replace the shower, which was faulty, but it did not include this information in the stage 1 response she had not received any further communication about the repairs.
20 August 2024	In its stage 2 response the landlord said it: upheld the complaint because it failed to address matters in the appropriate timescales acknowledged there had been delays and it had not kept the resident updated carried out an inspection on 30 July 2024 would provide an update about an appointment to replace the electric shower and the flooring by 28 August 2024 advised the resident about making an insurance claim for damaged laminate flooring offered £120 compensation, broken down as: a)     £50 for delays completing follow on works b)     £50 for poor communication c)     £20 for not arranging a follow up appointment.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 4 September 2024 the resident asked us to investigate. She said: there were ongoing issues with leaks there were ongoing issues with the shower she was concerned about health and safety because she slipped a few times in the bathroom when the landlord attended it often did not know what works it should be completing, did not bring the correct equipment, only carried out temporary repairs and it would leave to collect parts and not return despite the landlord painting the living room, there were ongoing issues with mould she has changed the flooring multiple times due to the leaks to resolve the complaint, she would like the landlord to complete the repairs and pay her compensation or move her to alternative accommodation.

 

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.

What we did not consider:

7. The resident told us there are ongoing problems with mould in the living room. We can only consider issues the landlord has had the opportunity to consider via its internal complaints procedure. The resident did not raise this issue during the complaint process. Therefore, we cannot investigate the resident’s concerns at this stage. The resident may pursue this matter through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and refer to this Service if she remains dissatisfied after receiving a stage 2 response.

 

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs
Finding	Maladministration

Leaks and flooring replacement

8. The landlord has not disputed that it is responsible for the repairs the resident reported. Its tenant handbook says it will attend the property and ‘make safe’ immediate repairs within 24 hours, complete urgent repairs within 7 working days and complete routine repairs within 28 working days.
9. The landlord inspected the shower and raised an order to replace it in February 2023. The records also note damage to the living room floor from a previous leak and that the wet room panel may need resealing. The order was deleted because it was incorrectly allocated. There is no evidence the work was re-raised correctly which is a record keeping failure.
10. The landlord raised 2 repairs for a leak from the shower cubicle on 19 May 2023. It attended promptly and replaced the mastic within its 7 working day timescale for an urgent repair. The landlord deleted the duplicate repair it had raised in error. However, it attended the property for the duplicate repair on 12 October 2023. The operative did not understand the job description and the resident did not know what the appointment was for. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not correctly cancel the duplicate work order. This is a record keeping failure which caused confusion and wasted time for the landlord and resident.
11. The landlord’s records include a contact note about an inspection for a leak under the shower on 17 July 2023. The landlord marked the note as ‘resolved’ however there is no completion date or corresponding repair record. The landlord should have kept an accurate record of the action it had taken and how the issue had been resolved. That such records have not been maintained is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping.
12. There are no further reports of leaks until January 2024, when the landlord raised 2 repairs for ‘uncontainable’ leaks from the toilet. It attended and carried out repairs within its timescale for immediate repairs.
13. The landlord arranged a follow up appointment for 8 February 2024 to install a new toilet system. However, it failed to maintain a clear record of its actions and decision making during the appointment and its records do not clarify whether it installed a new toilet. The records say it did not identify any leaks but noted there was condensation due to a lack of heating and ventilation.
14. The following day, the resident reported an ‘active leak’ behind the toilet. The landlord did not attend until 6 March 2024, which exceeds its 7 working day timescale for urgent repairs. The landlord did not identify any leaks when it attended however, it noted the room was small, very warm, and there was heavy condensation under the cistern. It advised the resident to ventilate the bathroom.
15. On 11 March 2024 the landlord logged another repair for an ongoing leak near the toilet. It booked an appointment for 4 days later which was appropriate and within its timescales for an urgent repair. The resident rescheduled the appointment to 21 March 2024. The landlord attended on 3 April 2024. It identified a leak from the shower cubicle and referred the repair for an inspection. It was appropriate to arrange a survey to identify the repairs required, particularly as there had been multiple recent reports of leaks.
16. The landlord is not responsible for delays outside of its control, such as the resident rescheduling an appointment. However, its records are unclear about why it attended on 3 April rather than 21 March 2024. The landlord’s poor record keeping means we are unable to decide if it referred the matter to a surveyor within a reasonable time.
17. The landlord inspected the bathroom on 9 May 2024. The inspection report lacks detail and does not clearly explain what action the surveyor took to investigate the issue, the cause of the leak, or what priority the repairs should be attended under.
18. On 11 June 2024, further to the surveyor’s recommendations, the landlord raised work orders to:
    1. investigate a slow leak under the shower tray
    2. replace the shower tray
    3. replace flooring damaged by the leak.
19. There is no evidence to explain why it took the landlord 22 working days after the survey to raise the work orders, which was an unreasonable delay. There is also no evidence the landlord provided updates to the resident about the progress of repairs during this time which was unreasonable.
20. The landlord attended the work order to ‘investigate the slow leak under the shower tray’ on 13 June 2024. It replaced the silicone and noted that in addition to replacing the shower tray, it also needed to replace the cubicle door. The landlord replaced the door on 16 July 2024 which was appropriate and within its 28 working day timescale for a routine repair.
21. The repair records for the work order to replace the shower tray show the following:
    1. 1 July 2024 – the landlord recorded the appointment as “no access”
    2. 4 July 2024 – it rebooked the appointment for 6 August 2024
    3. 7 July 2024 – the work order was deleted as “not required”
    4. 8 August 2024 – the resident asked to reschedule the appointment
    5. 22 August 2024 – “job for a plumber”
    6. 23 August 2024 – it booked an appointment for 4 September 2024
    7. 4 September 2024 – the work was completed.
22. The landlord completed the work 108 working days after the inspection on 9 May 2024. Whilst there is evidence that delays were in part because the resident did not provide access and rescheduled an appointment, the landlord significantly exceeded its timescale to complete routine repairs within 28 working days. Furthermore, the landlord failed to maintain a clear record of its actions. For example, the records show it booked an appointment for 6 August 2024 however there is no evidence it attended, it “deleted” the order on 7 July 2024 but continued to update the record, and it is unclear what happened on 22 August 2024.
23. The landlord’s records show it cancelled the original work order to replace the flooring because the work required was more extensive than it anticipated. The landlord raised a new work order which was subsequently cancelled because it was ‘not required’. It raised the same order again and completed the work on 20 December 2024. The landlord did not replace the flooring until 160 working days after its inspection. This is a significant delay and is not in line with its commitment to complete routine repairs within 28 working days. It is unreasonable that the only update it provided to the resident about the status of the repair was in its stage 2 response.
24. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it carried out an inspection of the outstanding repairs on 30 July 2024. It has not provided us with any records of this inspection. We would expect the landlord to be able to provide this information and its failure to do so is evidence of poor record keeping.

 

Repairs to the electric shower

25. After the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord raised a routine repair to replace the shower. Although the first appointment was recorded as ‘no access’ it attended on 2 September 2024 which was within its timescales for a routine repair. The landlord did not replace the shower because it was working when it attended which was a reasonable decision to make.
26. 6 weeks later, the resident told the landlord the shower had stopped working again. The landlord agreed to replace the shower and committed to completing the repair within 7 working days because it identified the resident as vulnerable. This was appropriate. However, it did not complete the work until 30 working days later on 26 November 2024. This was an unreasonable delay and the landlord’s lack of communication meant the resident contacted it to chase the repair.
27. We are aware the resident reported issues with the new shower in January 2025. The landlord has not yet considered the resident’s concerns about issues with the new shower though its internal complaints procedure. As such, we cannot investigate these concerns at this stage. This is because the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate complaints and put things right if failings have occurred. The resident may pursue these matters through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure if she chooses to do so.
28. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs. In its stage 2 response it accepted there were service failures and offered compensation for these. The landlord’s offer of £120 falls within its compensation procedure guidelines for an amount appropriate for a low impact failure of short duration which caused minimal inconvenience and distress. However, the offer is not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation.
29. The resident told us the situation affected her because:
    1. she was frustrated by the landlord’s failure to resolve leaks for an extended period
    2. she was inconvenienced when the landlord attended appointments without knowing what work was required or only carried out temporary repairs
    3. the landlord’s poor communication meant she did not know what was happening with each repair
    4. she was extremely concerned about slipping on the bathroom floor and injuring herself, particularly because she has arthritis.
30. In line with our remedies guidance which says between £100 to £600 is appropriate where landlord failures have adversely affected the resident, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay a total of £400 compensation for its handling of the repairs.

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

31. The landlord issued its complaint responses in line with the timescales set out in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.
32. The Code says when a landlord logs a complaint it must set out its understanding of the complaint and clarify with the resident any aspects it is unsure about. The landlord’s complaints procedure says it will call the resident to ensure it understands the complaint before starting its stage 1 and stage 2 investigations.
33. In its stage 1 response the landlord defined the complaint as about a “constant leak from the shower tray” and “delays completing repairs in the bathroom”. The resident escalated the complaint because the landlord did not address the replacement of the shower at stage 1. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint before its investigation. This meant it did not fully understand what issues the resident was complaining about and led to the resident escalating the complaint.
34. The landlord failed to carry out a thorough investigation of the complaint at stage 1 because it did not consider events prior to 13 June 2024. This meant it did not acknowledge that it identified a leak from the shower on 3 April 2024 and carried out an inspection on 9 May 2024 from which there remained outstanding repairs. This resulted in it incorrectly deciding not the uphold the complaint at stage 1.
35. In its stage 2 response the landlord did not address the resident’s reports that an operative attended on 3 July 2024 but did not carry out any repairs. This was a missed opportunity for it to explain what happened and demonstrate it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
36. The landlord’s failure to understand and thoroughly investigate the complaint resulted in time and trouble for the resident to seek a resolution. Therefore, in line with our remedies guidance which says up to £100 is an appropriate amount of compensation for service failure, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. Our investigation identified several record keeping failures. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its actions and decisions will help the landlord to improve transparency and accountability.
38. Effective record keeping systems and processes should ensure the landlord can monitor and progress repairs in line with its priority timescales.

Communication

39. The landlord can reduce instances of ‘no access’ and/or confusion about what repairs are to be carried out by confirming the date, time and purpose of repair appointments to residents in advance.