City of Westminster Council (202331610)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331610

City of Westminster Council

16 September 2025

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs reported by the resident.  
   2. Handling of the resident’s request to be moved during planned major works.
   3. Refusal of the resident’s housing transfer application.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

3. The resident has occupied the property, a 2 bedroom flat on the tenth floor, with her 2 children since June 2018. She has an assured tenancy and has explained to us she has physical and mental health conditions. The landlord is a local council.
4. On 24 July 2023 a plumbing repair order was raised for a detailed examination of the bathroom’s plumbing system to investigate an odour the resident had reported. As a result of the visit, it was noted there may be issues with one of the drainage points or with the stack pipe. The contractor arranged for a subsequent CCTV survey of the stack pipe to accurately identify any blockages. However, it could not be done as access could not be obtained.
5. A repairs surveyor also visited the same day to assess a smell and draught coming from the kitchen. A job was raised to carry out repairs but the landlord recorded that the resident refused the work unless her top units were also replaced. Contractors also attended on 16 August 2023 to repair window panels to prevent draughts. That work was completed on 8 September 2023.
6. The resident complained on 12 August 2023, that a number of repairs had not been addressed and the ongoing odour at the property, along with her medical needs, meant she could not live in the property. She was unhappy she had been refused a management move and was concerned that major works were planned. She said she would need to be moved while they took place. She also commented on the noise made by a lift in the building.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint on 4 September 2023. It upheld the complaint in part and offered the resident an apology and £40 compensation. This was made up of £20 for its failure to respond to a letter she had sent in June 2023 and a further £20 for a delay responding to the complaint.
8. The resident escalated the complaint on 25 September 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 March 2024, having been prompted by us. It upheld the complaint in part and apologised to the resident and offered her £1,800 compensation. This was made up of:
   1. £1,000 for the prolonged delays addressing the odours and pest issues.
   2. £500 for the time and trouble pursuing the complaint and added distress and inconvenience caused due to her health issues.
   3. £200 for poor complaint handling and failing to keep her updated.
   4. £100 for failing to address her concerns about the lift service at stage 1.
9. The resident has said the repairs remain outstanding and she wants help getting a management move, so she can transfer to another property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. In the interests of the Ombudsman investigating issues that are still ‘live’, it is our practice to limit the scope of our investigations to a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint being made. In this case, the resident has referred to there being an odour at the property since 2019, but it is apparent that matters escalated in 2023 and the complaint to the landlord was made in September 2023. While earlier reports of issues have provided important context to the current complaint, this investigation is focused on events leading up to the complaint, so from June 2023 onwards. We have also considered events following the landlord’s final response as the issues have reportedly remained unresolved. 

Jurisdiction

11. Paragraph 42.j of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The resident’s complaint about the refusal of the housing transfer application relates to the way the landlord dealt with an application for a management transfer. This is not something we can investigate, as it is for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to consider.
12. When the resident complained, she said she was unable to use the bath due to her health, so had to shower at her parents. She explained that this, along with other health issues meant she ought to be permanently moved to another property. The LGSCO can investigate the resident’s claim the property is no longer reasonable for her to continue to live in, that her housing conditions are unsatisfactory and that she has medical grounds for a move. Therefore, if this is something the resident wishes to pursue, she should contact the LGSCO directly, and details of how to do that can be found here: Contact us – Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. For the reason we have set out, we find the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s refusal of her housing transfer application is out of our jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of repairs reported by the resident.  

13. In June 2023 the resident reported a number of issues to the landlord. These included:
    1. Bad smells coming from the kitchen and bathroom.
    2. Draughts throughout the property from the windows and walls that had floating panels.
    3. The lift being noisy at night.
    4. The lower kitchen cupboards had no back panels and she felt a new kitchen was needed.
14. The landlord’s ‘policies document – tenant handbook’, says emergency repairs should be attended within 2 to 4 hours, urgent works within 24 hours and non-urgent repairs addressed by making an appointment.
15. As the issues reported were not urgent, it was therefore appropriate that an appointment was made on 24 July 2023 for an operative to attend to investigate the bathroom odour and a CCTV survey of the stack pipe to try and identify any blockages. The resident reported the sink and bath drains were cleaned but the odour remained, and she was told the issue may be the main drain but to examine that, would mean breaking a wall and removing the bath.
16. The surveyor responded the same day and explained a CCTV survey was less intrusive, so it would be best to try that first. If however, the issue was not found, it would then look to remove the bath and break into the wall if needed. They also checked the age of the kitchen and confirmed it was fitted in 2002 and the renewal date was 2027. A job was raised for all the base units to be taken out so that holes and gaps could be filled and for backboards to be applied to all base units. They said if there were any issues and the same units could not be put back, they would consider a kitchen renewal. The surveyor also explained that a carpenter would apply weatherstrip to the window frames and seal all the panels in the bedrooms and living room to reduce the draughts. The landlord therefore took prompt action to address the repairs needed.
17. An operative attended on 26 July 2023 to do the CCTV inspection but the drain was inaccessible and access to a neighbouring property was also not provided. They attended again on 1 August 2023 but there was a lack of access to the stack for the bathroom. However, they did check the water seal on the wash basin was in place and there was no smell from the waste pipe. It was also noted there was no smell from the bath plug hole. Again, they were unable to access the neighbouring property so a further appointment was made.
18. On 8 August 2023, a refurbishment & demolition survey was carried out, looking at the bath panel and surrounding area including wall and floor coatings and any items left behind the bath panel. No risk of asbestos was identified.
19. Contractors attended on 16 August 2023 and carried out repairs to the window panels to prevent draughts and returned on 8 September 2023 to renew the top swing hinges on the windows in the living room. In the meantime, on 21 August 2023, works were undertaken to address the gaps in the panels located in the bedroom and living room, and the external wall leading to the balcony was resealed. In addition, weatherstrip was to be renewed in the living room and bedroom windows, to provide sealant around the windows.
20. A contractor then visited on 1 September 2023 and found a deceased mouse behind the bath panel, which they considered to be the source of the smell. The resident was given details of how to report a pest problem and the bath panel, which was noted as damaged, was booked in to be replaced on 11 October 2023.
21. The surveyor attended again on 23 October 2023 and the bath area was checked and found to be clear, however a recommendation was made for pest control to inspect the bathroom of the neighbouring property and the redundant ventilation system. In terms of the kitchen works, there were 3 failed attempts to schedule an appointment with the resident, so the job was closed. The landlord said the resident refused the work as the top kitchen units were not going to be replaced, but it did offer to send a surveyor out to reassess whether the kitchen should be renewed sooner.
22. That assessment was carried out on 14 November 2023. A further inspection of the bathroom and kitchen was done and an odour in the bathroom was noted as needing further investigation. The surveyor found both the kitchen and bathroom to be in decent condition but recommended adding the kitchen to the next programme for renewal.
23. On 11 December 2023, contractors reattended as the resident said the draught had got worse. They eased and adjusted the window in the living room to close a gap.
24. Having identified the odour in the bathroom needed further investigation, the landlord arranged a drainage survey for 20 December 2023. This included a thorough inspection of all internal pipework, communal drainage stacks and the washing machine pipe, to try and address any issues in the communal stack and any drainage connections. However, the landlord’s records state the visit “was unsuccessful due to access issues”. Further visits were scheduled for 27 December 2023 and 3 January 2024, but again the operatives could not get access to the property. However, the inspection did eventually take place on 10 January 2024.
25. The inspection again noted the odour in the bathroom. It was unable to conclude the source of the odour even having checked the extractor, plug hole wastes, and direct waste pipes. The inspection recorded the extractor appeared to be functioning correctly, but a similar odour was detected coming from the vent. It stated access to the stack cupboard, positioned behind the low-level panels of the bath and wash hand basin was not possible. It determined an asbestos survey was necessary to investigate the presence of asbestos in this void area, which could potentially be contributing to the problem. Around that time, the landlord also rearranged for kitchen renewal works to be done, once any asbestos had been removed. It also replaced a window hinge that needed repair, on 25 January 2024.
26. The landlord has said that in terms of the odour issue, it attended again on 30 May 2024 and the smell was present. The operative noted it may have been from the bath waste and soil pipe from the neighbouring property, but the repair notes say the bath panel was put back on and no further action was taken. A carpenter attended on 5 June 2024 and smelt the odour but as they were not a plumber, they could not take any action. It is not clear what work needed to be done, but the landlord’s records say the resident refused work on 13 June 2024 and 9 July 2024 as she said nothing needed to be done, so no further work has been carried out.
27. The resident has commented on the number of times operatives attended and noted the odour in the bathroom, took the bath panel off and did camera surveys but failed to address the issue, and the cycle of visits then started again. She feels strongly the odour issue was not addressed for a long time. However, she has told us there was a leak from the neighbouring property, that has now been fixed, so the odour in the bathroom has reduced. However, she has reported there is still an odour in the kitchen every now and again that needs to be addressed, and she claims other neighbours are having the same issue.
28. We cannot comment on issues other neighbours may be having, as they are not party to this complaint. However, it is clear the resident is still complaining about an ongoing odour. The landlord should therefore arrange a date with the resident to inspect the kitchen again and advise what action it will take to investigate and resolve it.
29. Overall, while the landlord struggled to identify the cause of the odour in the bathroom and kitchen, it is important to recognise it did try and resolve the problem. Its records do not seem to have identified an issue with an odour from the kitchen, but it is noted the resident has said there is an odour that occasionally appears. It should therefore investigate that further.
30. The landlord did find an odour issue with the bathroom, as well as vermin which it addressed. It also did surveys and attempted to inspect the neighbouring, privately owned property. However, there were visits that took place where the notes acknowledge the odour and although an inspection took place, no repairs were carried out, and this was clearly frustrating for the resident. There was also reference to there being a need to inspect the neighbouring property on several occasions, but there being difficulties gaining access. While that may have been the case, the landlord could have done more to explain to the resident what steps were available to it, to get the neighbour to provide access and help get the issue resolved, if access continued to be an issue.
31. It seems from what the resident has said, the bathroom odour has largely been addressed. It is not known when or how the odour issue was resolved, but it certainly took an unreasonable amount of time for the matter to be addressed. In terms of the other reported issues, the landlord investigated the resident’s concern about the lift making a noise on 11 April 2024, but no issue was found. The landlord took steps to try and reduce draughts and it arranged for the kitchen renewal to be brought forward to February 2024 which resolved the repairs that were needed.
32. The records show there were times when operatives attended but were unable to resolve the reported issues, but there were also times when access could not be obtained. When it responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 6 March 2024, the landlord did though, take responsibility for the failures in its service. It apologised and offered £1,800 compensation, made up of:
    1. £1,000 for the prolonged delays experienced in relation to the odours and pest issues reported.
    2. £500 for the time and trouble to pursue the complaint and the added distress and inconvenience caused, in particular, taking in to account her health conditions.
    3. £200 for the poor complaint handling and for failing to keep her updated.
    4. £100 for failing to address her concerns about the lift service in the response to her Stage 1 complaint.
33. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
34. In this case, as the repairs reported were not urgent, in accordance with the tenant’s handbook, it was reasonable that the landlord arranged appointments to address them. However, it took the landlord a long time to carry out the repairs, which was unreasonable. This clearly caused the resident a lot of frustration, and the landlord’s compensation procedure states that in a situation where there has been high impact on a resident, compensation of over £700 should be considered and it should pay £20 for a missed appointment.
35. The evidence provided does not enable us to know how many appointments, if any, were missed. There may have been some, but there were also times when the landlord was not given access to do works. Therefore, it is best to assess the service overall and the level of compensation already offered.
36. The landlord has already offered the resident £1,600 compensation just in relation to failures in its handling of repairs, and this exceeds the suggested amount of compensation in its compensation policy, as well as our remedies guidance. As a result, we have made a finding of reasonable redress and that the landlord has made an offer which was reasonable and proportionate to resolve this part of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved during planned major works.

37. Major works seem to have been initially planned to start at the building where the resident lived around September 2023. Having advised the landlord she could not stay in the property while they took place due to her medical needs, the landlord explained when it responded to the complaint, that it could arrange a temporary move while the works were carried out. Its list of planned works was extensive, and it explained the major works contractors were developing a detailed programme of works and this could be shared once complete. It would then start the process of moving her to temporary accommodation, based upon the timescale for specific works which may affect her health.
38. It is clear the resident feels strongly she may need to be moved on medical grounds when works take place. The landlord acted reasonably by reassuring the resident it had noted her concerns, and by explaining it would ensure it took her specific needs were considered when the time came for works to start.
39. The landlord has recently told us that although the resident’s building is part of a major works project, work is not now due to start until 2026. It has said “the majority of the major works are to the block itself and the only works that appear to be listed for the individual dwellings are new front doors if deemed necessary”.
40. Although the resident wants the landlord to confirm in writing that she will be moved during the works, it would not be fair to expect it to do that, as it would depend on the work being done as well as her medical needs at that time. We are satisfied the landlord has dealt with matters reasonably. However, when the resident is notified of the works starting, if she still feels she will need to move, she can inform the landlord of that, and it can then re-address her request at that point. We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

41. The landlord’s complaints policy says complaints will generally be acknowledged within 2 working days. It goes on to say it aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
42. The stage 1 response was sent 14 working days after the complaint was received. The landlord rightly acknowledged there had been a slight delay in responding and it offered the resident compensation of £20. There is no evidence of the resident having been impacted negatively by the slight delay in responding to the complaint. However, it is good to see that the landlord took the opportunity to address the delay promptly. As there was only minor delay, the modest offer of £20 compensation was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
43. There was however, a delay of 5 and a half months in the landlord issuing its stage 2 response, which was only sent after the resident escalated the matter to us. The resident was therefore inconvenienced as a result of having to wait for a response, but the landlord did apologise and there was no long term or permanent detriment to the resident. In addition to the apology, the landlord again offered compensation to the resident in the amount of £200. Its compensation policy suggests making a payment of up to £250 where there has been poor service, but which had low impact. That was the case here.
44. The £20 compensation offered at stage 1 and the £200 compensation offered at stage 2 was in line with its own guidance, and also with our remedies guidance for findings of maladministration. As a result, we would have made the same or similar award in the circumstances, and we therefore make a finding of reasonable redress and that the landlord has made an offer which was reasonable and proportionate to resolve the complaint.

Determination

45. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there has been reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of repairs reported by the resident.             
46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved during planned major works.
47. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the landlord’s refusal of the resident’s housing transfer application, is not within our jurisdiction
48. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there has been reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

49. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £1,800 compensation offered during the complaint process (if it has not done so already). This recognised a deficiency in its handling of repairs as well as the complaint and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.
50. It is recommended that the landlord investigate the odour in the kitchen and report to the resident what action it intends to take to address it.