City of Westminster Council (202541810)

Background

1. The resident reported damp in the property shortly after moving in. She is unhappy that despite the landlord’s commitments to resolve matters the damp issue is still ongoing.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp

5. The landlord failed to resolve the damp issue in line with its repairs policy, and it remains unresolved 2 years after the resident reported it. While it acknowledged some failings in its complaint responses, it did not follow through with the commitments made to resolve the underlying damp issue.

Complaint handling

6. There was 1-day delay in the landlord sending its stage 2 response, which had no impact on its overall complaint handling.

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.

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.

7. The landlord’s records show it carried out work to the roof on 5 March 2024. It conducted a void inspection on the same day which noted ‘hall/stairs – once dry reinstate paintwork to ceiling.’ This implies that there was moisture present in the hall/stairs at that time. Its records show that it investigated a drainage leak on 29 March 2024, but at that time was unable to gain access to the roof.
8. The resident moved into the property on 8 April 2024. She contacted the landlord about damp in the property on 24 April 2024. Following 2 missed appointments where she said its contractors attended without prior notice, she called it on 16 May 2024 as she had not heard anything. Its contractor attended the following day to conduct an inspection. It found damp patches in the kitchen and at the top of the stairs. It believed the issue stemmed from a problem with guttering.
9. On 23 May 2024 the resident raised a complaint. She told the landlord she had not been able to move into the property as it was uninhabitable. She said she could not paint or put flooring down and it would not be safe for her young child. We have seen evidence there was an outstanding damp problem at the start of the tenancy. However, the landlord’s inspection records do not indicate the property was unsafe for her to move into.
10. In its stage 1 response of 3 June 2024 the landlord said its contractors had brought issues with the roof to its attention while carrying out other repairs. It had raised a job to check the roof and the ceiling in the rear bedroom on 17 May 2024. However, the report from the inspection conducted that day does not comment on the condition of the second bedroom. It is therefore unclear whether this bedroom was in a suitable condition for the resident’s daughter to use.
11. The landlord said it had booked an appointment for its contractors to attend on 5 June 2024 and determine what repairs it needed to complete. Its response, and compensation offer, at this time were proportionate as it had committed to conducting further investigation and repairs.
12. The landlord’s records do not show whether it completed the inspection on 5 June 2024 as promised. However, they do show it completed roof repairs on 8 July 2024. Its repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 28 days. It completed this repair slightly outside this timescale. It would have been appropriate for it to keep the resident updated, but we have seen no evidence it did.
13. The landlord has provided no evidence it took any further action to check the repairs had resolved the issue, or carry out internal repairs, until the resident contacted it in November 2024. It booked an inspection for 29 November 2024, but rearranged this for 2 December 2024, when she was unavailable, without letting her know.
14. On 3 March 2025 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint as she said the wall was still wet and could not be painted. She told it her daughter was unable to sleep in her bedroom as it was damp and sometimes they did not sleep at the property at all.
15. The landlord’s records show it conducted an inspection on 2 April 2025 although it has not provided a copy of an inspection report. An internal note says that it did not believe there was a leak and that a mould wash caused previous wall wetness. It said the wall was now dry upon inspection and it would complete remedial paint work within 2 weeks. The landlord’s records do not show when it carried out a mould wash, and it is unclear how it concluded that this was the cause of the dampness.
16. In its stage 2 response of 10 April 2025 the landlord said it had confirmed with the resident on its recent visit that the walls were now dry. It said it was sorry to hear about her concerns for her daughter and said it the issue should present again it would reinvestigate and resolve it. It apologised for the lack of contact about decorative works and confirmed it would complete these by 17 April 2025.
17. The landlord said that its compensation policy does not cover any adverse effect on health. It directed the resident to its liability insurance if she felt it had been negligent and wanted to make a claim, which was reasonable. The landlord’s total offer of compensation was £195 was not proportionate for its failings. It had been 12 months since she moved in, and the decorative work remained outstanding. It was also unclear whether the underlying damp problem had been resolved. While the landlord acknowledged some failings, it failed to acknowledge that the damp had been present since before she moved in. Its response did not fully consider the impact on the resident and her daughter.
18. The landlord has not provided evidence that it successfully completed the decoration work. The resident contacted it on 30 October 2025 to say that someone had come to prepare for painting several months earlier but the walls were still damp. She told it she had received no further communication from it. We have seen no evidence the landlord followed up on this with her.
19. On 16 February 2026, the landlord raised a repair order for a roof leak. Its records show this job as still open, so it is unclear what steps, if any, it has taken to resolve this. Given the time that passed after previous roof repairs, it is not clear whether this is the same issue. However, given the persistent presence of damp on the resident’s walls, and the landlord’s lack of follow-up, it failed to demonstrate the previous roof issues were fully resolved.
20. On the visit in February 2026 the landlord found that it needed scaffolding to carry out repairs. It conducted a damp and mould inspection on 5 June 2026 where it again noted it needed scaffolding for repairs. This inspection found damp staining, blistering paint, and elevated moisture readings. It noted small openings visible in the loft, which it said may be contributing to water ingress. It told us it has proposed to conduct a further inspection to assess the condition of the walls in the second bedroom.
21. Considering the circumstances of the case, the £195 compensation awarded by the landlord did not reflect the distress, frustration, time, and trouble incurred by the resident. While we are unable to conclude that the second bedroom was uninhabitable based on the evidence provided, its records do not demonstrate that it dealt with damp reports in a reasonable or timely manner.
22. The landlord failed to follow through with commitments to resolve matters, and when it continued to identify damp issues, it did not follow-up on these. The damp issues remain unresolved more than 2 years after the resident reported them. To address this, we have awarded £700 to replace the landlord’s offer. We have made this award in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where a failure has gone on for a long period of time, with a lack of action to address the issue.

23. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 1 working day after the resident raised it and it sent its stage 1 response 5 working days later. This was in line with the timescale of 10 working days set out in its complaints policy, which was compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in its timescales and definition of a complaint.
24. At stage 2, the landlord’s acknowledgement was slightly outside its policy timescale of 5 working days. It sent its response 21 working days after this, slightly outside its policy timescale of 20 working days. These delays were minor and did not impact its overall complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord did not keep good records of inspections and work carried out in this case. Its records do not clearly show what actions it took when, and do not demonstrate that it followed up when it continued to identify damp issues during visits.
26. Poor record keeping made it hard for the landlord to deal with repairs proactively and effectively. Our spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management highlights that without good data management, landlords may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. Landlords can strengthen how they record and use data by improving training, providing clearer guidance, and increasing support for staff.

Communication

27. The landlord’s records do not show that its overall communication was good. It did not keep the resident regularly updated throughout the repairs process, relying instead on her to chase it for updates. It should be more proactive in keeping its residents updated while investigations and repairs are ongoing.