City of Westminster Council (202404101)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404101

Westminster City Council

7 January 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress at the property.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the 7th floor.
  2. The resident suffers from asthma. When she first reported water ingress, her daughter was living in the property – she was 6 years old and had breathing problems.
  3. In March 2022, the resident reported water ingress to the ceiling and walls in her kitchen and bathroom. The landlord undertook an inspection of the affected areas and the upstairs flat where this was suspected to be coming from (on 17 March 2022) but was unable to find the source of the leak. In May 2022, the landlord undertook dye testing in an attempt to diagnose the leak but was again unable to determine where the leak was coming from.
  4. The landlord attended with its leak detection team in September 2022. The contractor’s note showed that there was a small leak from behind a toilet pan connector. They also recorded that the landlord would need to break out a section of the wall between the kitchen and the bathroom as the leak was hidden.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint on 27 October 2022. She said she had been living with a leak for 3 years and that this had been negatively affecting her asthma and mental health. She said the landlord’s contractors had diagnosed a leak from the flat above but not taken any action towards rectifying this.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 November 2022. It confirmed that, despite numerous visits, it had still been unable to locate and repair the exact source of the leak. It arranged a new inspection and provided the resident with £150 compensation for its failings. This consisted of £50 for delays, £50 for stress and £50 for inconvenience.
  7. The landlord attended on 14 November 2022 to replace the cistern at the upstairs property. The resident made a new report about water ingress on 5 January 2023 stating this was occurring in the same location. The landlord attempted to visit the resident’s neighbour to inspect the ingress but was unable to gain access. The landlord undertook a further inspection of the resident’s property in January 2023 but no works were completed.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 13 March 2023. She was unhappy that the landlord had made no progress with the mains leak which she said had now been ongoing for over 3 years. She wanted a full update on who would be completing the repair and when.
  9. The landlord visited the property to undertake inspections on 11 April 2023 and 19 May 2023 and provided its stage 2 complaint response on 2 June 2023. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, increasing its offer of compensation to £595. This consisted of the £150 offered at stage 1, £100 for the delays resolving the leak, £50 for failing to monitor the repair, £25 for failing to provide updates, £20 for its delays handling the complaint and £250 for distress and inconvenience. It said there was no evidence that the leak reported in January 2023 was related to the leak resolved in November 2022. It added that it was unable to confirm the exact source of the leak but that it had scheduled further appointments for 6 June 2023 to expose the pipework.
  10. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 29 April 2024 asking us to consider her complaint. She said the water ingress had been ongoing for 6 years. She reported that the resulting damp and mould had led to problems with her asthma and she had to move her child out of the property due to her developing breathing issues.
  11. The resident recently informed the Ombudsman that the water ingress has now been resolved although the landlord has not performed remedial works, meaning she still has holes in her ceiling and walls. To resolve her complaint, the resident said she would like the landlord to complete the outstanding works and to provide compensation.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised that the water ingress has been ongoing for several years prior to raising the complaint. Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which ‘were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising’. Although the Ombudsman has noted the long running nature of the resident’s concerns, this investigation has centered on the reports made by the resident within the 12 months prior to raising her complaint.
  2. The resident continued to make reports to the landlord about the leaks following the stage 2 complaint response. Paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints about matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. In this case, we have therefore assessed whether the actions the landlord proposed in its final complaint response were reasonable and if these matters were carried out in an appropriate timescale. The resident is reminded that she may raise a new complaint about any matters which have occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in June 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about water ingress

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that it is responsible for repairs to ‘services and equipment that supply water, gas, electricity, sanitation, heating and hot water’.
  2. This policy has several different timescales for completing repairs. For immediate repairs, it says it will attend within 2 hours and make safe within 24 hours. For urgent repairs, it will attend and complete works within 3 working days. For non-urgent or more substantial repairs, the landlord intends to complete these within 28 working days. The landlord lists ‘leakage of water from plumbing or heating service not contained by local drains’ as an immediate repair, whilst ‘plumbing works and blockages’ are listed as urgent.
  3. The resident reported water ingress to the landlord on 13 March 2022. Following this, the landlord undertook an inspection on 17 March 2022 and performed intensive testing to try and locate where the ingress was coming from on 20 May 2022, 31 May 2022 and 26 September 2022. By the time of the stage 1 complaint response on 1 November 2022, the landlord had still failed to diagnose the cause of the water ingress, meaning the resident had been dealing with this for approximately 8 months. This length of time to diagnose and repair the ingress represented service failure from the landlord which it rightly offered compensation for in its stage 1 complaint response.
  4. The landlord undertook repairs in the property above, overhauling the cistern in late November 2022. It believed that this had resolved the water ingress into the property. When the resident made new reports in January 2023, the landlord determined that this related to a different leak albeit in the same location. However, there is a note from a contractor dated 26 September 2022, recording that there was a hidden leak, and that invasive works were needed.
  5. Whilst the landlord’s records talk about a cistern overhaul in November 2022, it is unclear that it completed any invasive works or inspected the cold water supply pipe that it later found to be causing water ingress. The landlord has not provided full reports on the works, nor commissioned a full diagnostic survey of the leaks throughout the course of the complaint period. Whilst its leak detection team were involved, there was a failure to keep a full record of the works or to fully diagnose the cause of the leak(s).
  6. The landlord has not provided evidence to support that the January 2023 leak on the cold water supply pipe was not ongoing when the resident made reports back in March 2022. Given the lack of evidence, it is unclear how the landlord established (in its stage 2 complaints response) that this pipework leak was not ongoing several months earlier.
  7. The resident mentioned – when chasing the landlord on 13 March 2023 and 29 March 2023 – that the cause of the leak was a cold water supply pipe. This suggested the landlord had potentially diagnosed the cause of the water ingress even if it had not located the exact location. It is unclear why it took so much further time to expose and fix the pipework.
  8. The landlord’s records demonstrate it attended on 11 April 2023 and 19 May 2023 to diagnose the cause of water ingress. Both of these however were unsuccessful. The timescale for the landlord’s visits fell outside of the timescales specified in its repairs policy given the nature of the water ingress the resident reported. The landlord also does not appear to have performed any form of written survey or report of either visit. Overall, the landlord’s management of the ingress was confused with no clear plan laid out of how it intended to resolve the water ingress. This confused approach led to it sending a contractor out to perform remedial painting works in the resident’s property on 26 April 2023 despite it failing to have stopped the leak.
  9. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman suggests that the landlord completed repairs to stop the water ingress in August 2024. This was around 2 and a half years after the resident’s reports that led to the complaint. This was significantly outside of the timescales specified in the landlord’s repairs policy. Within the scope of this investigation, it was 15 months since the resident reported the ingress.
  10. There were some factors which delayed the landlord’s works such as the discovery of asbestos in April 2023, and difficulties with access to the neighbouring property that impacted its diagnostic works. Nevertheless, these do not explain the overall severe delay in diagnosing and repairing the leak. The landlord itself acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it had failed to properly progress the works following the cancellation of an asbestos test. The landlord also failed to communicate with the resident about any reasons for delay.
  11. Despite the significant length of time the ingress was ongoing, there is no evidence the landlord put in place a full plan for identifying and rectifying the water ingress. In its stage 2 complaint response, it mentioned that it would be undertaking a further inspection and exposing the pipework but communicated no wider plan or strategy for dealing with the ingress if this inspection was unable to immediately stop the water ingress. The time taken for the landlord to move towards exposing the pipework was significant and represented a clear failure to perform the necessary works in the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
  12. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities whilst handling her reports. The water ingress led to damp and mould in the resident’s flat which the landlord does not appear to have considered. There is no evidence it acted to prioritise works because of this or considered alternative steps such as decanting. The resident made the landlord aware of her asthma as well as the breathing problems her daughter was having.
  13. The resident mentioned this on 20 September 2022, 27 October 2022, 5 January 2023, 9 January 2023, 13 March 2023, 29 March 2023 and 23 May 2023. The landlord did not take any safeguarding steps in response to this. Its delay in dealing with the water ingress led the resident to move her young daughter out of the property. Despite the numerous reports of vulnerabilities, the landlord did not consider these and prioritise works as a result – this was a significant failure.
  14. The landlord’s communication throughout this period was poor. The resident frequently had to chase it for updates and received very little communication on the landlord’s plan for stopping the ingress and completing any necessary remedial works. This is despite the resident chasing the landlord for updates on multiple occasions between January and March 2023.
  15. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the water ingress at the property represented maladministration. The landlord’s first attempted repair was significantly delayed, there were failings in its investigations once it became apparent that this repair was unsuccessful, and it did not properly consider the resident’s vulnerabilities throughout.
  16. The landlord did recognise that its handling of the water ingress had fallen short of expected standards. It offered the resident £595 compensation for these failures. However, given the length of time the water ingress was ongoing and the lack of progress the landlord made over 15 months, this offer of compensation was insufficient. Works were still outstanding at the time of the June 2023 final complaint response and the leak was not resolved for more than a year after this despite the assurance the landlord offered. This indicates that the landlord failed to learn sufficient lessons from the failings that it acknowledged through the complaints process. The resident has reported that the related remedial works are still outstanding.
  17. For its failings, the landlord should pay the resident £1,000 compensation. This is inclusive of its offer of £595 made in its stage 2 complaint response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the property.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £1,000 compensation, inclusive of its previous compensation offer of £595, for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures when handling her reports of water ingress
    2. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
    3. Organise an inspection of the resident’s property to determine what remedial works need to be performed. Within 2 weeks of this inspection, the landlord should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the report, inclusive of proposed timescales for completion of all works.
    4. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so.