City of Westminster Council (202425390)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202425390 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
City of Westminster Council |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
9 March 2026 |
Background
- The resident raised concerns about how the landlord’s staff behaved regarding his use of a garage and the nearby area. He also complained about how the landlord handled his requests for reasonable adjustments for his learning disability.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The concerns about the conduct of staff members.
- The resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s:
- Response to requests for reasonable adjustments.
- Complaint handling.
- The landlord’s response to report of concerns about the conduct of staff members is outside of our jurisdiction.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Conduct of staff members
- The Ombudsman can only investigate matters related to a resident’s occupation of their property. We cannot investigate complaints about issues, including staff conduct, related to garage use unconnected with the resident’s occupation of their home.
Reasonable adjustments
- The landlord did not accurately record the resident’s reasonable adjustments. It also did not consider the resident’s request for a face-to-face meeting as a reasonable adjustment before it issued its stage 1 response.
Complaint handling
- The landlord did not acknowledge complaints. It delayed responses and created confusion by providing an interim response at stage 1.
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:
|
No later than 06 April 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows:
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. |
No later than 06 April 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
6 November 2023 |
The resident complained about the landlord’s response to his reports of the conduct of staff members who he felt were treating him unfairly. He said that when he approached the landlord to discuss this, it refused to accommodate his requests for reasonable adjustments. |
|
20 November 2023 |
The landlord emailed the resident addressing some of the points raised in his stage 1 complaint. |
|
12 December 2023 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response and did not uphold the complaint. It said that the issues raised were addressed in line with its policies around use of garages, parking and reasonable adjustments. |
|
7 March 2024 |
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He felt he had not been granted reasonable adjustments to enable him to discuss and clarify his complaint. |
|
13 May 2024 |
The landlord accepted that staff acted too quickly when speaking to the resident about one incident. It denied treating the resident unfairly or failing to consider his reasonable adjustments. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding at stage 2 and for not keeping the resident updated. It awarded compensation of £50. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response and wanted us to review it. |
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 |
Response to concerns about the conduct of staff members |
|
Finding |
Outside jurisdiction |
- The resident said the landlord’s staff treated him unfairly when they spoke to him about how he used his garage and parking near the garage. He has a license agreement to use the garage which is separate from the lease he has with the landlord. We can only look at issues that relate to a resident’s occupation of their residential property. This means we cannot consider the actions of staff who approached the resident about the garage or parking outside the garages unconnected to his home.
|
Complaint |
Response to requests for reasonable adjustments |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we did not investigate
- The resident said the landlord should have known about the reasonable adjustments he needs because he used to work for the council. We cannot investigate information held on wider council systems or whether other council departments should have shared information with the landlord.
What we did investigate
- On 12 October 2023, the resident went to the housing service centre to discuss the landlord’s concerns about his garage use and parking nearby. The landlord and resident give different accounts of what happened at that meeting.
- Disability is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. This means the landlord must consider how its actions affect disabled residents and make reasonable adjustments where needed. We cannot decide whether the landlord breached the Equality Act like a court can. However, we can assess whether it acted in line with its own policies, procedures and best practice.
- The resident said he asked to record the meeting on his phone as a reasonable adjustment to avoid misunderstandings. He said the landlord refused and instead asked another staff member to sit in as a witness. He said the witness did not take notes, so this was not a meaningful or effective reasonable adjustment. He said he felt intimidated by having 2 staff members in front of him. The landlord said the resident asked for reasonable adjustments but did not specify his needs. Both parties agree that the resident told the landlord he was a vulnerable adult with a learning disability. The landlord said it offered to help him complete a complaint form, while the resident says the landlord refused to take his complaint. The situation escalated, the resident became frustrated and was perceived as aggressive, and the police were called. The landlord later issued a 12-month ban preventing the resident from attending the office.
- It is not possible to know exactly what happened on 12 October 2023. However, the resident clearly told the landlord he was vulnerable and needed reasonable adjustments. He said the experience distressed him. He also said that the landlord was heavy-handed in the way it delivered the banning letter. Two police community support officers (PCSOs) were present, and staff told him they would read the letter aloud because of his learning difficulty. He felt this approach was unnecessary, intimidating, and undermined his dignity.
- In his stage 1 complaint on 6 November 2023, the resident asked for a face-to-face meeting with someone independent of earlier events. He requested this as a reasonable adjustment so he could give full details and evidence. The landlord did not arrange this, despite knowing about his disabilities. This was a missed opportunity to understand his concerns and support him.
- By the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response, it had introduced a procedure on vulnerable residents and reasonable adjustments, followed 4 months later by the associated policy. The procedure aims to support vulnerable residents, including leaseholders. It says the landlord should identify vulnerabilities, record reasonable adjustments, and handle complaints in the resident’s preferred way where possible.
- During the landlord’s’ stage 2 complaint process, it took positive steps in line with this procedure. It offered a phone call to confirm the resident’s complaint. It held a face-to-face meeting and allowed the resident to record it as a reasonable adjustment. The landlord noted that he has a learning disability and dyslexia, which should be treated as a disability under the Equality Act. However, it did not record what specific reasonable adjustments he needed. This was not consistent with its policy, recording only that he has a disability is not sufficient. This creates a risk that staff will not meet the Equality Act or the landlord’s own policy in future.
- The landlord holds documents that the resident has provided confirming the resident has autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and dyslexia, both of which are disabilities under the Equality Act. The documents relate to diagnosis of ASD and dyslexia and a workplace needs assessment. They include reasonable adjustments such as allowing him to record meetings, using clear communication, and giving him time and support to express his views and understand information. They also note that his ASD may cause him to appear aggressive or struggle with communication. It is realistic to expect the landlord to record this information so staff can apply reasonable adjustments.
- The landlord’s vulnerable residents and reasonable adjustments policy was not in place at the time of the incident. We cannot say the landlord should have known about the resident’s disabilities before 12 October 2023. However, once he told the landlord, it had a duty to consider his needs under the Equality Act. The landlord failed to implement reasonable requirements. It has not correctly recorded the resident’s reasonable adjustments since it implemented its policy. This amounts to maladministration. We have ordered compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused, in line with our remedies guidance. We have also identified learning points.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord’s definition of a complaint is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Where complaints will take longer to investigate it will send a holding response to advise of this. The policy does not specify how long the landlord can extend a deadline by.
- The Code sets out that a complaint response must confirm the complaint stage, the complaint definition, the decision on the complaint with reasons, details of any remedies and outstanding actions. It should include details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2.
- The resident raised his stage 1 complaint via an online form on 6 November 2023. There is no evidence that this was acknowledged by the landlord. The resident phoned the landlord on 17 November 2023 for an update. The landlord realised that the complaint had not been assigned correctly. It told the resident it would not be able to respond by the deadline of 20 November 2023. It would instead aim for 1 December 2023. On 20 November 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and addressed some of the points raised. However, this was not a clear complaint response setting out the information required by the Code. The resident had to respond to this email to ask if it was the final response to his complaint. The landlord sent an appropriate stage 1 response on 12 December 2023. This was 27 working days after the resident raised the complaint. There was no explanation for this increased delay.
- The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 7 March 2024. There is no evidence of acknowledgement and the landlord responded on 13 May 2024. This was 46 working days from the date of escalation, past the 20-working day timescale.
- As there were no acknowledgements of the complaints, the definition of the complaint was not agreed with the resident. The stage 1 complaint did not cover refusal of reasonable adjustments, the feeling of intimidation, the concerns about heavy-handedness or the request for a meeting and the opportunity to provide further information. This led to the escalation of the complaint to stage 2.
- The lack of acknowledgement, delays to responses and confusion around what constituted a response amount to maladministration. The landlord apologised for the delay at stage 2 and for not keeping the resident updated and offered £50 compensation. We have increased this to £150 in line with our remedies guidance.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord recorded that the resident has a disability, but it did not record the specific reasonable adjustments he needs. It is important to capture enough detail, so staff understand what support resident’s needs.
Communication
- It is positive that the landlord gave the resident the opportunity to discuss his concerns face-to-face at stage 2, however it should have allowed this at stage 1. Going forwards, it should be aware of residents’ preferred method of communication.
- The resident said the way the banning letter was delivered—by hand with two PCSOs present—made him feel distressed and undermined his dignity. This shows the importance of considering how actions may be perceived by vulnerable residents. The landlord should show more sensitivity and ensure it makes these decisions proportionately so as not to treat residents in a heavy-handed manner.
- The landlord should review how it might handle similar situations in future, when dealing with vulnerable residents needs sensitivity and understanding of individual needs.
Complaint handling
- The landlord should ensure it follows its complaint policy to prevent delays and confusion.