City of Westminster Council (202223576)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223576

Westminster City Council

6 March 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property including a leak and subsequent remedial works, repairs to the windows, and mice and pigeons in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord. The resident lives at the property with her children both of whom were under 10 years old at the time of the complaint.
On 23 April 2021, the resident’s neighbours contacted her to say there was a leak coming from her flat. The resident contacted the landlord’s emergency repairs service and was told an engineer would attend but no-one did. On 26 April 2021, she called the landlord again, but the engineer found no signs of a leak.
On 6 May 2021, 2 sets of neighbours contacted the resident about a leak coming from her property. Again, the landlord’s engineer could not find any signs of a leak. The resident contacted the landlord a further 4 times between 8 May 2021 and 7 June 2021, but the landlord was not able to resolve the issue.
On 27 June 2021, the resident found a pool of water in her bathroom. The engineer removed the bath panel but could not find the leak. The resident heard nothing further.
On 12 July 2021, the resident reported water pouring in through her bathroom and bedroom light fittings and through the ceiling in the front room. The window and wall in the bedroom were soaking wet with water. In the kitchen there was water behind the sink cupboard panels. The engineer who attended said he was unable to do anything as the leak was due to heavy rain but would forward evidence of the leak to the landlord.
An electrician removed the bathroom light for safety reasons on 13 July 2021.
On 14 July 2021, the resident called the landlord for an update on when it would repair the leak. The landlord told her a surveyor would visit her property. On 25 July 2021, it rained heavily and there were further leaks into the property.
On 1 August 2021, the resident complained to the landlord. She set out the number of times she had contacted it about the leak and what she had reported each time. She said:
1. She still had no bathroom light.
2. She and her children were sleeping in the front room as the wall in the bedroom was wet and smelled bad. The kitchen also had the same smell. She suffered from asthma and the problem was affecting her respiratory health.
3. She reported that since the start of the leak she had a problem with mice and could hear pigeons in the loft above the front room.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 August 2021. It said:
1. It acknowledged that there had been delays caused by its contractors not attending on time and it not raising a works order to inspect the roof. It had made an appointment to inspect the roof on 29 August 2021.
2. It had raised a repair to replace the sealant behind the sink taps and it would contact the resident to provide an appointment date.
3. It had repaired a leak coming from the toilet but acknowledged that there had been a delay in it completing this repair, leaving the resident without a fully functioning toilet between 1 and 11 August 2021.
4. Its pest control team had not been able to gain access to the property on 12 July 2021 and it had not received any further reports of mice since that date.
5. It would make an offer of compensation to the resident once all the repairs were complete.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord’s surveyor visited the property and following this visit, the landlord said it replaced sealant round the kitchen sink taps on 20 August 2021, repaired gaps around the front room window on 3 September 2021, and carried out works to the roof on 16 September 2021.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 28 March 2022. She said:
1. She had been waiting since September 2021 for internal damage resulting from the leak to be remedied.
2. The wall in her room was wet and there were wet patches on the ceilings in both the front room and the passage.
3. The window in the front room was broken and a gap was letting in draughts. She had been told that the landlord would contact her about the window, but it had not done so. She asked that the landlord contribute towards her gas bill as she had lost heat during the winter due to these gaps.
4. The bathroom light and the bath panel had not been replaced.
5. Pest control had filled in gaps in her property in the past, but the issue was happening again due to the problems with the roof, the landlord not putting a cupboard panel back properly, and there was a gap under the kitchen window.
6. She wanted compensation for the conditions she had been living in for the past 6 months.
The landlord repaired the bathroom light on 11 April 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 May 2022, to advise her it needed more time to respond to her stage 2 complaint.
On 1 June 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. The resident had not reported any further leaks to her home.
2. She had not reported any further problems with the windows since the surveyor’s visit, nor had she raised the bathroom light.
3. None of its operatives had advised that the bath panel needed replacing.
4. She had not raised any recent problems with vermin.
5. Its surveyor would attend to inspect the issues the resident had raised.
6. It offered the resident £230 compensation in relation to her stage 1 complaint but said that it did not uphold her stage 2 complaint as there had been no further service failures.
The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 1 January 2023. She said the gaps around the front window had not been repaired. The bedroom wall was still wet and damaged. She had been left without a bathroom light from 12 July 2021 to 11 April 2022. The bath panel had not been replaced. The mice in her property had not been dealt with. The landlord had said it had tried to gain access on 2 occasions however she was not informed about these appointments. She had missed 2 appointments in June 2022 due to her neighbour mistakenly picking up her post but had replied to a calling card left by the landlord on 23 June 2022. She wanted the repairs to be completed and the landlord to offer more compensation.
The landlord’s pest control records show that it attended the resident’s property on 6 January 2023. It placed baits in the kitchen and at the loft hatch in the front room.
On 24 August 2023, the landlord provided a complaint update to the resident. It apologised for the delays in completing the repairs since August 2021. It said:
1. It would repair the roof on 30 and 31 August 2023.
2. Repairs to the gaps around the window, remedial works to the ceiling, the replastering and repainting of the hallway walls, the painting of the bedroom wall, the replacing of the bath panel, the repair and repainting of the kitchen window, and proofing works against mice, would take place by the end of September 2023.
3. It offered the resident increased compensation of £900 for the delays to the repairs and £200 for time and trouble, and the service failure in its complaint handling, making a total of £1,100 compensation overall.
The works to the roof required the landlord to follow a consultation process with its leaseholders, as the estimated cost of these works would affect leaseholders who paid a service charge to the landlord. The landlord informed the resident of this. On 11 September 2023, the landlord served a notice of intention to affected leaseholders, and the consultation process finished on 24 November 2023. The works to the roof were completed on 13 December 2023.
The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman on 8 February 2024, that the proofing against mice was carried out in January 2023. The resident said that the following works had not been completed: repairs to the gaps around the front room window, remedial works to the ceiling, the replastering and repainting of the hallway walls, the painting of the bedroom wall, the replacing of the bath panel, and the repair and repainting of the kitchen window. She said the landlord called her on 25 January 2024, asking whether it could come and carry-out some repairs the following day, however the resident was not able to agree to this as she had not been given sufficient notice. The resident called the landlord the following week and it said that it would schedule the outstanding repairs as a priority, and it would contact her within 3 working days. The resident heard nothing further, so she called the landlord on 31 January 2024, but was told there were no repairs listed for her property.
On 14 February 2024, the landlord contacted the resident. It apologised that the following works were still outstanding: repairs to the gaps around the front room window, the ceiling remedial works, the replastering and painting of the hallway, the painting of the bedroom wall, the replacing of the bath panel, and the repair and painting of the kitchen window frame. It said she had accepted its previous compensation offer of £1,100 and it had paid this to her. It offered her a further £900 compensation broken down as follows: £600 for the further delay to the repairs, £200 for its failure to keep her updated after the roof repair and £100 for her lights not working (the landlord has made an error in its offer letter – the letter states that it is offering a further £800, but as shown above, the breakdown of the amount indicates that the offer is in fact £900).
On 22 February 2024, the landlord contacted the resident. It said she had refused its contractors access as she was not happy with the instructions the landlord had provided them with for the plastering. The landlord said it would carry out a further inspection and would confirm what works would be carried-out.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

The resident has mentioned in her complaint that her health was affected by the landlord’s handling of the leak and subsequent repairs. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. The Ombudsman can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

Policies and procedures

Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property. This includes gutters, the roof, window frames, toilets, and baths. The tenancy agreement also states that residents must allow the landlord and its contractors into their property to carry-out repairs.
The landlord’s tenants’ handbook, published on its website, states that it will attend to emergency repairs to make the issue safe within 24 hours. It states it will attend to urgent plumbing works within 3 working days and to routine repairs within 28 working days.
Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, governs the process landlords must follow where repairs exceed a cost of more than £250 per tenant. Landlords should issue a notice of intention to leaseholders that describes the proposed works, explaining why they are necessary and should invite leaseholder comments during a consultation period of at least 30 days.
The landlord’s complaint process has 2 stages. At stage 1 it will provide a response in 10 working days. At stage 2 it will provide a response in 20 working days. Its complaints policy states that if it needs longer to investigate a complaint, it will write to the resident to explain the reasons for the delay and to let residents know when it will respond.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published on our website, sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that where landlords need more time to respond to a complaint, any extension of time should not exceed 10 working days at either stage without good reason.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs

The resident contacted the landlord at least 11 times between 23 April 2021 and 25 July 2021 about the leak at her property. It is accepted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that its contractors had not attended an appointment within the arranged timeframe on 2 occasions, and it had not raised a job to inspect the roof when it should have done. These delays will have caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience.
It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in it repairing the leak to the resident’s toilet, and that she had not had a fully functioning toilet for 11 days. The landlord’s tenant’s handbook states that it will attend to urgent plumbing repairs within 3 working days. This delay will have caused the resident significant inconvenience particularly as she had two small children.
The landlord said there were times when it was not able to gain access to the property. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s doorbell was not working for a period of time, so it ensured that it called her mobile on arrival at the property. As noted above, the resident’s post was mistakenly delivered to a neighbour which led to a couple of missed appointments, however, she called the landlord after receiving a card its operatives had left. The resident said that on other occasions she was not contacted about appointments in advance. The landlord’s records show that it followed good practice in leaving cards when it had not gained access. However, the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to show that it contacted the resident in advance when arranging appointments to carry-out inspections or routine repairs. Where there is a dispute over the facts without supporting evidence to confirm what happened, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine what was and what was not the case. It is recommended that the landlord ensure that it contacts residents in writing when arranging appointments for non-emergency repairs and keeps records to show that it has done so.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said the resident had reported that the bath panel was wet and swollen. The landlord acted appropriately in its stage 2 complaint response in agreeing to inspect the bath panel to see if it needed replacing. However, in a photo taken by its surveyor over a year later on 14 July 2023, it is clear that the bath panel was badly damaged, and the landlord had not taken steps to repair or replace it.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would consider compensation once the repairs were completed. This is not in line with the Code which says complaints should not be held up because repairs are outstanding. Therefore, the landlord could have awarded compensation for delays which had happened and were foreseen at the time of the stage 1 response. If appropriate, it could then award further compensation at stage 2 for any additional delays which had occurred since the stage 1 response.
In response to the resident stage 2 complaint that the walls and ceilings were wet, the landlord said it had not received reports that there had been any further leaks in the property since it had carried out repairs to the roof and gutters on 16 September 2021. This was an unreasonable response as the resident had raised this issue repeatedly. The resident had told the landlord in her report of 12 July 2021, that the window and the wall in the bedroom were soaking wet with water. Furthermore, in her stage 1 complaint of 1 August 2021, she said her family were all sleeping in the front room due to the bedroom wall being wet. The landlord said that the resident had not made its surveyor aware of any internal damage caused by the leak when they inspected the property on 6 August 2021. When visiting a property, a landlord’s surveyor should ensure they are clear what issues they are there to inspect. It is accepted that surveyors also rely on residents to show them areas in need of repair, but the resident may have reasonably assumed the surveyor was aware of the damage caused by the leak as she had raised this multiple times with the landlord.
In response to the concerns the resident raised in her stage 2 complaint about mice in the property, the landlord simply referred back to its stage 1 complaint response, saying that it had advised her to contact pest control. This was an inadequate response. The landlord should have asked its pest control department to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property and to remedy any issues following her stage 2 complaint. The fact that it did not do so will have caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience and may have made her feel she was being passed from department to department in trying to get the problem resolved.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that the resident had not told it she did not have a bathroom light installed. This was incorrect, as she had raised this in her stage 1 complaint. It said that the resident had not raised the issue with its surveyor when he visited and had not contacted it about the issue again until 28 March 2022. The fact that it was unaware that the bathroom light had not been reinstalled, points to a lack of oversight and monitoring of repairs by the landlord as this repair will have been showing as outstanding from 13 July 2021, when its electrician removed the light for reasons of safety after the leak. It is accepted that the landlord may not have wanted to replace the light until the repairs to the roof and guttering were complete. However, it would have been reasonable for it to reinstall the bathroom light within 28 working days once repair works to the roof were carried out on 16 September 2021, in line with its repairs policy. The fact that it did not do so until 5 months later was an unreasonable delay which will have caused the resident considerable inconvenience.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident raised the issues of gaps to thewindows,prior to the landlord’s surveyor’s visit of 6 August 2021, nor that she made any further reports about this issue prior to her stage 2 complaint of 28 March 2022. The landlord acted reasonably in advising that it could not raise works to repair issues that had not been reported to it. However, as with the other repairs in this case, the landlord did not take any further action to repair the resident’s window after her stage 2 complaintand as of 14 February 2024, this repair remains outstanding. This is an unacceptable delaywhich will have caused the resident significant inconvenience given her concerns about her home being cold.
The resident complained that the wet walls in her property risked affecting her health. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to look at whether it could take any steps to support the resident and/or refer her to other agencies who may be able to provide support. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to advise her that she could pursue a personal injury claim with its liability insurer should she wish to do so for damage to her health. The landlord should pass on its insurer’s details to the resident now so she can make a claim if she wants to. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims and therefore we could not comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurer if a claim is made to it.
The resident has said that the landlord accused her of not contacting contractors. She has also said that the landlord lied and tried to silence her. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s significant delays in completing the repairs to her home, will have left the resident feeling angry and frustrated. However, we have not seen evidence that the landlord lied or tried to silence her.
It was appropriate that in its review of the resident’s complaint of 24 August 2023, the landlord apologised to the resident and acknowledged that its communication had been poor and that most of the repairs the resident had reported to it remained outstanding. It was also right that it offered her increased compensation in acknowledgment of the impact the delayed repairs will have had on the resident and her family.
The landlord acted in line with its obligations under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act in relation to the further roof repairs. It acted appropriately in following its section 20 consultation process and informing the resident of this. Once the section 20 consultation was complete, it wanted to see if works to the roof had been successful before carrying out the internal remedial works to the property. It would have been reasonable however, for it to write to the resident to explain this and to provide her with dates when it would complete remedial works to the ceiling, the replastering and repainting of the hallway walls, and the painting of the bedroom wall.
It is unreasonable that the repairs to the windows and the replacement of the bath panel are still outstanding, 6 months after the landlord’s complaint review of 24 August 2023. These works were not dependant on the further roofing works being completed, and the landlord should have carried these out within 28 working days of its complaint review, in line with its repairs policy. The fact that it did not do so is a failing which would have caused the resident frustration as well as considerable time, trouble, and inconvenience. It is appropriate, however, that the landlord has recognised this and has offered a further £900 in compensation.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance states that where maladministration has been identified which adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation should be considered. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the increased compensation of £1,800 offered by the landlord since its stage 2 complaint response for its delays in completing the repairs, is reasonable and proportionately recognises the significant time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident and is more than the Ombudsman would have offered in this case.
As noted above, the landlord has said that the resident did not allow its contractors access on 22 February 2024 to carry-out plastering in the property. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, she is required to give the landlord’s contractors access to carry out repairs. However, the landlord has taken a practical approach in agreeing to carry-out a further survey of the property to confirm the exact works needed. It is appropriate that the landlord has said it will confirm to the resident what works will be carried-out once the further survey has taken place.
Whilst the landlord ultimately offered increased compensation, this offer was not made until after the landlord had exhausted its own complaints policy and following the Ombudsman’s involvement. The Ombudsman’s investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of the complaint within its complaints process and any offers of redress made during the complaints process. Therefore, there is a finding of maladministration from the landlord in its handling of the repairs as there were still outstanding repairs at the time of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, and it did not offer reasonable redress during the complaints process, it only offered this after the end of the complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord contacted the resident on 7 May 2022 to inform her that it needed more time to respond to her stage 2 complaint. This was appropriate and in line with its complaint policy. However, it should have written to the resident prior to 25 April 2022 which was the date it was due to issue its stage 2 response. It issued its stage 2 response on 1 June 2022. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, set out above, states that any extension of time to respond to a complaint should not exceed a further 10 working days. While this delay in responding was not an overly lengthy one, it will have caused the resident inconvenience as she was left waiting for a response to her concerns for longer than she should have been.
In its review of the resident’s complaint in August 2023, the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures. The compensation offered for this aspect of the complaint is reasonable and recognises the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, set out above.
However, whilst the landlord ultimately offered increased compensation for this aspect of the complaint, this offer was not made until after the landlord had exhausted its own complaints policy and following the Ombudsman’s involvement. The Ombudsman’s investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of the complaint within its complaints process and any offers of redress made during the complaints process. Therefore, there is a finding of maladministration from the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint as it did not offer reasonable redress during the complaints process, it only offered this after the end of the complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that the Ombudsman is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
1. repair the gaps around the window in the front room,
2. carry-out remedial works to the ceiling,
3. replaster and repaint the hallway wall,
4. paint the bedroom wall,
5. replace the bath panel,
6. repair and paint the kitchen window frame, and
7. pay the resident the further £900 compensation it has offered her for its failures in its handling of the repairs to her property if it has not done so already.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Contacts residents in writing when arranging appointments for non-emergency repairs and keep records to show that it has done so.
2. Provides the resident with details of how to contact its liability insurer (if it has one) so she can make a claim for damage to her and her children’s health if she wishes to do so.