City of Westminster Council (202348018)

Decision
Case ID	202348018
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Westminster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	03 February 2026

Background

The resident reported a roof leak which caused damp and mould in the property. The landlord’s actions indicated the damp, and mould was linked to water ingress and repairs were required to the roof.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs and damp and mould.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found the landlord responsible for:
1. Service failure in its response to reports of repairs and damp and mould.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of repairs and damp and mould

The landlord did not resolve the roof leak and damp and mould within the timescales set out in its policies. The landlord offered compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays. However, given the length of delay against the landlord’s own leak standard, and the sustained impact on the household, we do not consider this amount fully reflects the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint Handling

The landlord did not response to the resident’s complaints within its published timescales. However, it acknowledged the delay and offered proportionate compensation to recognise the impact of this delay.

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: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 03 March 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £500 (inclusive of the £350 previously awarded) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures handling reports of repairs and damp and mould.	No later than 03 March 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

03 March 2026

Compensation Order

The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £500 (inclusive of the £350 previously awarded) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures handling reports of repairs and damp and mould.

No later than

03 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £50 offered at its stage 2 response if it has not done do already. This compensation is in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on this sum being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 November 2023	The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the ongoing water ingress, damp and mould in the property.
02 January 2024	The landlord issues its stage 1 response. In its response, it upheld the complaint and offered £200 compensation.
26 January 2024	The complainant requested an escalation of his complaint.
25 March 2024	The landlord issues its stage 2 response. In its response, it upheld the complaint and offered £400 compensation for: £350 delays in repairs £50 delays in stage 2 escalation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman remaining dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered in the landlord’s response.

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	Reports of repairs and damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

Reports of repairs

The resident reported water ingress from the roof affecting his child’s bedroom on 26 October 2023. The landlord was required to respond in line with its repairs policy. We therefore considered whether its actions and timescales were reasonable.
The landlord’s Process for Managing Leaks Guidance (2020) sets out the required response standard. It states that the landlord must raise an emergency job where a leak is uncontainable. Where a leak is containable, the landlord must complete the repair within 3 days.
The landlord raised a roofing repair order on 30 October 2023. The contractor did not contact the resident until 22 November 2023 and did not inspect the roof until 28 November 2023. The landlord therefore did not meet its 3-day containable leak standard even at the point of initial inspection.
Following the inspection, the landlord did not progress repairs promptly. The contractor recorded that the request was not processed correctly in the system, which required council intervention. The landlord also required a variation order before works could proceed and did not approve this until 20 December 2023. This meant the resident waited around seven weeks from the repair order being raised before works were authorised.
The landlord scheduled roofing works for 17 January 2024. Cold weather prevented completion on that date which provided some mitigation as materials could not be applied below 5 degrees. However, the contractor did not complete the first phase of roof repairs until 7 February 2024, more than three months after the landlord raised the repair order.
This repair did not resolve the leak. The landlord raised a recall job on 19 February 2024 after further water ingress occurred. The landlord’s surveyor witnessed continued water ingress during a visit on 22 February 2024.
The contractor completed further roof repairs on 8 March 2024. The resident therefore waited from 30 October 2023 until 8 March 2024 for the landlord to complete repeat works to address the leak. This took around 18 weeks, which fell far outside the landlord’s own 3-day standard for containable leaks.
The landlord’s delay resulted from a combination of administrative failures, variation approval processes and the need for repeated repairs before it resolves the underlying defect.

Reports of damp and mould

The resident reported damp and mould arising from the water ingress in January 2024. The landlord’s damp and mould policy requires it to act quickly, particularly where damp and mould affects children or vulnerable households.
The landlord arranged a damp and mould inspection on 9 January 2024. The surveyor identified mould and water damage in bedroom 1 and recorded that the household included three children, including an autistic child.
The landlord raised a mould treatment job and completed a mould wash on 17 January 2024. This was eight days after the inspection. This showed appropriate action once the landlord involved its damp and mould team.
However, the resident explained that treatment and redecoration could not resolve the problems while the leak remained ongoing. On the 17 January 2024 the resident told contractors that he did not want decorating works to take place until the landlord had resolved the roof leak. When mould operatives attended again on 22 February 2024, the resident refused access for the same reason.
Once the landlord completed roof repairs on 8 March 2024, it raised redecoration works on 21 March 2024 and completed internal decoration on 30 April 2024.
The landlord acted through inspections, specialist attendance, mould treatment and follow-on works. However, it did not resolve the roof leak within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
While the landlord took inspections and arranged follow-on works, it did not keep the resident appropriately informed throughout the process. The evidence sows that the resident repeatedly informed throughout the process. The evidence shows that the resident repeatedly chased updates and was unclear about when works would be completed. This lack of consistent communication contributed to the resident’s frustration and prolonged the inconvenience caused by the delay.
Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for such situations, where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. The landlord’s award of £350 does not adequately recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays and its communication failures. The landlord missed the chance to put things right resulting in the finding of service failure.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £150 bringing the total compensation to £500 in recognition of these failures. We have not made an order for any follow up work as the landlord has provided evidence of completed works dated 30 April 2024.

Complaint	Response to the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy requires it to respond within its published timescales at each stage and to keep residents informed where delays occur. The policy states that it should issue:
1. A stage 1 response within 10 working days
2. A stage 2 response within 20 working days
The resident complained on 20 November 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 January 2024, which was significantly outside the landlord’s 10 working days timeframe.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 26 January 2024. The landlord issues its stage 2 response on 25 March 2024, which was also outside the landlord’s 20 working day timeframe.
The evidence therefore shows the landlord did not respond to the complaint within its policy timescales at either stage. However, the landlord acknowledged these shortcomings, apologised, and offered £50 compensation for the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident. We consider this is proportionate and in line with its compensation framework which says such a sum is appropriate where there was low impact for a short period of time. We therefore consider the landlord provided reasonable redress in response to the complaint handling issues raised.

Learning

Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:

a. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits

b. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.

In this case, the landlord took steps to inspect the roof leak and arranged specialist attendance. However, the evidence shows the resident had to chase the landlord for updates and further repairs were required after the leak continued. Improved communication and more consistent record-keeping of progress and repair outcomes may have reduced the resident’s frustration and uncertainty while the issue remained unresolved.