City of Westminster Council (202419894)

Background

1. On 7 May 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that her hand basin was back surging. That day she raised concerns about the contractors’ conduct.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs.
   2. The resident’s concerns about contractors’ conduct.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs.
   2. The complaint.
4. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about contractors’ conduct.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to:
   1. Proactively update the resident when its response to her repair issue was delayed.
   2. Take all appropriate steps to ensure repairs were progressed.
   3. Tell the resident in advance that its stage 2 complaint response was delayed and did not provide our contact details.
   4. Address all issues in its complaint response to ensure booking of repairs was not delayed.

.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The resident contacted the landlord around mid-day on 7 May 2024 to report issues with her hand basin back surging. The landlord later acknowledged that she requested operatives attend in personal protective equipment (PPE). It raised an immediate priority job. However, while contractors attended later that day, the resident reported that they were not wearing PPE. She said that, while the operatives initially said they would obtain PPE from their van, they later abandoned the job.
7. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that its description of work for the contractor did not accurately detail the resident’s request that PPE be worn. It was appropriate that it apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. It should have ensured that work raised contained enough information to ensure the repair was completed without delay, and within its repairs target. The landlord has since made a record of the resident’s request that operatives attend wearing PPE and that is appropriate.
8. In the afternoon of 7 May 2024, the landlord contacted its contractor to request it raise another immediate priority job. Subsequently, it noted the initial contractor had alleged the resident had been rude and threatening when it attended. It noted on 8 May 2024 that the contractor had requested an officer for the landlord to jointly attend the next repair appointment.
9. The landlord jointly attended with its contractor on 9 May 2024. It was appropriate for it to do so to progress the repair, given the contractor’s request. But arrangements for this delayed attendance. It did not keep the resident adequately updated during this time. Its target response time for an immediate repair was to attend within 2 hours and make safe within 24 hours. Given that it did not attend until more than 2 days after the report, it should have been proactive in updating the resident. Instead, it noted her repeated contact between 7 and 9 May 2025 questioning what was happening. Had the landlord kept her updated, it could have helped to avoid some of the concern she experienced.
10. The contactor completed work to clear the blockage to the hand basin on 9 May 2024. But it noted follow on work required to renew the hand basin and bath waste pipe and replace the external downpipe. This would typically fall to be actioned as a non-urgent repair, within 28 days.   The landlord raised this work on 29 May 2024. Its contractor contacted the resident on 31 May 2024 to book the repairs but noted she declined work. However, the landlord recorded on 4 June 2024 that the resident had said she wanted the work but did not feel comfortable about a contractor attending without the landlord present.
11. Records show the landlord asked its contractor to re-raise repairs on 17 June 2024. However, it did not detail what it was doing to address the resident’s request that it jointly attend. It did not do so even when providing its stage 2 complaint response on 25 July 2024. Instead, it said if she wanted the work completed, she should confirm her availability. It had told the resident that it did not intend all her future appointments to require the presence of its staff. But it should have appropriately addressed her earlier request for it to jointly attend. That it did not do so was a failing.
12. The records we have seen do not show what action the landlord took between July and November 2024 to progress work. However, communications the resident sent it on 7 and 11 November 2024 indicate work was delayed in part due to a dispute about removing tiles from the bath for access. The landlord should have kept clear records of its communication with the resident during this time. That it did not was a record keeping failing. It also means it cannot show it was taking reasonable action to resolve these issues.
13. The landlord’s repair records show its contractor attended on 13 November 2024 to provide a quote for work to replace a section of pipe and that they recommended descaling work to the downpipe. It raised a further job on 26 November 2024 to clear a bath blockage and attended to complete work to resolve this that day. However, repairs it had raised on 29 May 2024 to renew a section of pipe and replace a downpipe remained outstanding.
14. We acknowledge that the landlord noted the resident had asked it to place repairs on hold in December 2024. We also acknowledge that the landlord attended again on 20 January 2025 to access and inspect pipework under bath. It noted then that water was going down the pipe at a good rate. But records do not show it was taking clear action to arrange outstanding repairs to the downpipe.
15. The resident’s repair concerns, including other work that is not the subject of this complaint, were escalated to a senior member of staff during January 2025. It was only following this that the landlord took more proactive steps to agree a way forward for completing the outstanding repairs. It wrote to the resident on 4 February 2025 setting out action it would take to resolve the repeated blockages to the hand basin. But by this time repairs previously identified had been outstanding for more than 8 months. It should reasonably have taken earlier action to escalate matters.
16. The landlord contractor attended on 28 February 2025, as agreed, but noted the resident had said there was no further blockage and closed the work. It later attended again on 13 March 2025 to inspect and agree further work. Work was raised to replace the downpipe at the property on 14 April 2025. However, the landlord recorded in August 2025 that this repair was closed after the resident had refused work. The landlord eventually completed work to fit a new waste pipe and down pipe on 11 September 2025.
17. We acknowledge that the resident declined work on some occasions. But we have also seen evidence of poor management and oversight of repairs by the landlord. It did not adequately respond to or resolve the resident’s request for it to attend along with contractors. It has not demonstrated what it was doing to progress repairs between July and November 2024. Further, it delayed escalating to senior staff to aid resolution of issues. These failings prolonged resolution of repairs far in excess of the 28-day timescale it sets out in its tenants handbook and repairs policy.
18. Overall, we have found maladministration in its handling of repairs. We have ordered that the landlord review delays identified. It should consider whether it has adequate processes and guidance to address/avoid issues that led to these delays from being repeated.
19. So far, the landlord has awarded the resident compensation of £91. This does not adequately recognise the full impact of the failings we have identified. With consideration to all the circumstances, we have ordered that the landlord make a further award to the resident of £250. This amount is in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance and is aimed at fully recognising the impact of the landlord’s failings.

20. The resident told the landlord of her concerns that contractors had made allegations about her behaviour. Further, she said contractors had sworn at her. In its stage 1 response of 10 June 2024, the landlord set out that its contractor had reported that the resident or a member of her household had been rude and verbally threatening. It said that, as a result the contractor had requested it jointly attend the repair.
21. The landlord set out in its stage 2 response that it had clear expectations for the behaviour of its contractors. It offered to review the resident’s CCTV footage which she said captured the incident. It provided her with details of where she could send this. It said it would review this footage for further investigation and action. That was reasonable. We have seen no evidence that the resident provided further information to the landlord.
22. The landlord told us that complaints about contractors/staff members are investigated as a HR matter. That is in line with its complaints policy. It would have been better had the landlord explained this during its complaints response to the resident. That way she would fully understand how it would address the matter should she respond with further information. That it did not do so was a shortcoming. However, overall, we have found no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about contractors’ conduct.

23. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. When the resident complained to the landlord in May 2024, the relevant Code was the April 2024 edition. We have found that:
    1. The landlord’s published complaints policy at this time complied with the Code in respect of timescales.
    2. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s complaint, and its initial stage 1 response was timely.
    3. It provided a second stage 1 response to the resident addressing the same issues. It should have identified that it had already responded to the complaint to avoid confusion and concern. The landlord appropriately apologised for this in its stage 2 complaint response.
24. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was delayed. It contacted the resident to explain this. It provided its response 11 working days outside the target set out in its complaints policy. This was within the extended timeframe. However, it advised the resident of this delay more than a week after the previously agreed timeframe had passed. It should have done so in advance. Further, in line with the Code it should have provided our contact details at this time. It did not do so and that was a failing. We have ordered that it remind staff of the importance of doing so.
25. We have also set out earlier that the landlord did not do all it could to ensure repair issues were progressed without delay. It should have identified and responded to the resident’s outstanding request for its staff to attend repairs along with contractors. That it did not clearly do so was a failing. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. With consideration to the circumstances, we have ordered that it make an award to the resident of £100. This amount is in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance and is aimed at fully recognising the impact of the landlord’s failing.

Learning

26. The landlord did not clearly address the resident’s request for it to jointly attend appointments along with contractors. It also delayed taking appropriate action to escalate matters internally to help progress the repairs. We have set out an order that the landlord take appropriate action to ensure these failings are not repeated.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord did not make/provide adequate records showing its communication with the resident between July and November 2024 about repairs. It should maintain appropriate records. Without doing so it cannot adequately demonstrate what action it has taken to progress repairs.

Communication

28. The landlord did not appropriately communicate with the resident to proactively update her about its delayed attendance to an immediate priority repair. Later, it poorly communicated about her request that it attend repairs along with contractors.