City of Westminster Council (202414277)

Decision
Case ID	202414277
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Westminster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	31 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of a top‑floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder. Around October 2022, he reported that a previous roof leak had reoccurred and damaged the interior of his property. He later complained that the landlord failed to act, causing ongoing distress and forcing him to spend significant time chasing progress. The resident let the property through a property manager, who dealt with the landlord during the repairs and complaint process. In this report, both the leaseholder and property manager are referred to as “the resident.”

 

What the complaint is about

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

 

Our decision (determination)

4. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
   2. Complaint handling.

 

Summary of reasons

Reports of leaks

5. The landlord acknowledged it had significantly delayed addressing multiple roof leaks and failed to resolve them within a reasonable timeframe. However, it offered proportionate remedies in its final response and subsequent complaint updates. It also continued to engage with the resident, demonstrating consistent activity that reflected the nature, scale, and complexity of the repairs.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord acknowledged the delays in its final response and offered appropriate remedies.

 

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.

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident £1,530 as offered in its December 2025 formal complaint update in recognition of its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and its complaint handling. We found reasonable redress based on this amount being paid.
The landlord should share a copy of the case review it said it would undertake in its formal complaint update in December 2025 with both the resident and us.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 August 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about a recurring roof leak first reported in October 2022. He said the landlord repeatedly failed to carry out promised repairs despite chasing. He was worried about his tenants’ health and damage to the property. The resident wanted repairs, weekly updates and a post repair inspection.
22 August 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged that a scaffolding order raised in May 2023 was never acted on, which prevented any remedial work. It said it re-raised this with its contractor. It apologised for delays and committed to providing regular updates. It also offered £80 compensation for failing to carry out the repairs.
18 October 2023	The resident escalated the complaint. He said the landlord failed to take action to repair a roof leak for a year and the issue was unresolved. He wanted immediate intervention to protect his tenants and prevent further damage.
28 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged ongoing failures in resolving the leak. It confirmed repairs were completed in late 2023 but accepted that leaks later reoccurred and required further investigation. It apologised for delays, poor communication, and the impact on the resident and his tenants. It offered £780 compensation for service failures and provided information to claim against the landlord’s building insurance to address any internal damage. It also confirmed that its area surveyor would lead the outstanding works.
2 April 2025	The landlord reviewed its complaint response. It apologised for further delays and poor communication acknowledging a surveyor left without proper handover. A survey in December 2024 found roof leaks and there were further delays. The roof was repaired in March 2025 and confirmed the leak had stopped. The landlord increased its compensation to £1,180 in recognition of the delays.
18 December 2025	The landlord provided a further complaint update and acknowledged that earlier roof repairs in March 2025 were unsuccessful. It confirmed the resident repeatedly reported the unresolved leak, but poor communication and delays stalled progress. Roof repairs were completed in December 2025. The landlord recognised service failures, planned a case review to improve practice, and increased its offer of compensation to £1,530.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the roof has now been repaired but the process involved chasing, time, trouble and distress. He wanted further compensation and landlord to learn from this to prevent further recurrence for other residents.

 

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 leaks
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. The resident complained that the landlord failed to progress roof repairs, which led to damage inside his property. The landlord apologised, offered compensation, and confirmed that it would continue with outstanding roof works.
8. Under the lease, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior, including the roof. The leaseholder handbook confirms this obligation and explained that residents could claim on the buildings insurance where water penetration from a structural defect caused damage to decorations.
9. The landlord did not manage the leaks effectively from the outset. It did not carry out timely inspections or put in place a structured repair plan. Its communication with the resident was inconsistent, and the process lacked coordination and urgency.
10. The evidence shows the roof repairs were subject to repeated delays often caused by staff turnover, inadequate handovers, challenges securing scaffolding and pavement licences, and poor tracking of works. Between 2022 and 2025, there were several repair attempts, long periods of inactivity, and missed opportunities to escalate the case, causing avoidable frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
11. The landlord accepted that it had not managed the roof repairs properly and recognised the impact on the resident. Several leaks occurred during the complaint period, and the landlord confirmed the latest leak was resolved in December 2025.
12. When landlords acknowledge service failings, we consider whether they offered fair and reasonable redress and whether they acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
13. In its March 2024 final response, the landlord offered £580 compensation. This was broadly in line with our remedies guidance which suggests up to £600 where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident over a lengthy period. Further, the landlord’s other remedies including an apology, providing insurance information and agreeing to complete roof works were reasonable and proportionate to put things right.
14. However, leaks continued after that stage. The resident experienced ongoing inconvenience in managing reports, chasing updates, and addressing concerns raised by his tenants. He said he had lost tenants because of recurring and multiple leaks, which understandably added to his frustration.
15. In December 2025, the landlord increased its offer to £1,330 to reflect the prolonged delays and cumulative impact since March 2024. It also acknowledged that communication had been inadequate and noted no responses to resident emails in October and November 2025. Additionally, it identified lessons learned and committed to a case review to highlight its communication failures and the poor standard of works.
16. Although there were repeated delays, the landlord continued to engage with the repairs process, arranging multiple visits and works – even after our involvement from July 2024 – and took accountability for its errors and shortcomings. This sustained involvement was positive.
17. The evidence shows that several leaks originated from different points in the roof, adding complexity to the situation. Although there were delays, the landlord continued to attend the property, investigate new issues, and attempt further repairs. It acknowledged that, despite these efforts, it had not been able to fully resolve the problem. The roof was confirmed repaired in December 2025, and a follow‑up inspection in January 2026 found no further leaks. The landlord advised the resident to make alterations to the ceiling to allow for better ventilation, and in March 2026 the resident told the landlord he would seek an independent contractor to confirm the roof was watertight.
18. Taken together, the landlord’s initial response to the leaks was poor. Delays were lengthy, and the resident experienced prolonged and avoidable inconvenience. However, the landlord acknowledged its failures, took accountability, continued to engage with the repairs. It also increased its compensation as further delays and communication issues emerged. Although the resident faced ongoing disruption, the landlord took steps to put things right in response to the developing situation. The latest redress offer is reasonable. However, the handling of this case highlights important learning points, which the landlord noted and undertook to review.
19. It is unclear whether the case review has yet taken place. We have recommended the landlord provide the resident and us a copy. The resident has not accepted any compensation offered to date. In view of this, we have made a recommendation that the landlord reoffers it to the resident.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

20. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Its complaints policy complies with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
21. The resident complained on 10 August 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within its 10 working day policy timescale. The resident then escalated the complaint on 18 October 2023. However, the landlord failed to issue the stage 2 response within its 20 working day policy timescale. The landlord only issued its stage 2 response on 28 March 2024 – over 110 working days after the escalation request and well outside its policy timescale.
22. In its final response, the landlord apologised for its complaint handling failures and offered £200 compensation. This adequately reflected the delay and the additional time and effort the resident spent pursuing a response. While its failure to follow its policy and the Code caused inconvenience and required extra effort from the resident, its remedies offered in its final response put matters right.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

23. This case has shown how poor internal communication and repair‑tracking processes delayed progress and reduced the landlord’s ability to reassure the resident that roof works would be completed. The landlord should explain its actions clearly, provide timely updates, and ensure it carries out the roof repairs it is responsible for within a reasonable timeframe
24. It should review our Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance. The report highlights how with issues such as poor communication and inadequate complaint handling often drive dissatisfaction, and recommends clearer communication and stronger contractor relationships to improve accountability and service quality.