City of Westminster Council (202420114)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420114

Westminster City Council

30 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a leak into the resident’s property.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The property is a 1 bedroom flat within a block. The landlord is a local authority and is the freeholder of the block.
On 20 October 2023 the resident reported a leak in his property to the landlord. He stated that the leak had been ongoing for several years. The landlord’s contractor attended in October 2023 and recommended an investigation of the balconies of the 2 flats above the resident’s flat. The landlord attended the resident’s flat again in February 2024 after he continued to report leaks to his flat. When the landlord attended again in February 2024 it did not complete repairs. However, it acknowledged that it needed to investigate further to identify the source of the leak.
On 9 May 2024 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. He stated that the leak had been an ongoing issue for more than 3 years and had caused damage to his property. He reported that the leak had recently penetrated through the lighting in 1 of the rooms, creating a potential fire hazard. In addition to this, the resident expressed concerns that the leak had led to health issues among his family members and had damaged his personal belongings. He stated that the landlord had not fulfilled its commitment to complete the necessary repairs. He requested that the landlord address the outstanding issues and provide compensation for the damages he claimed to have incurred over the past 3 years.
On 21 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident. It upheld the complaint and acknowledged that there had been delays in repairing the leak. It said that this was primarily the result of access issues with the flats above. The landlord confirmed that it would proceed with repairs to the balconies and committed to keeping the resident updated on progress. In relation to the internal damage that the resident reported to his flat, the landlord offered to arrange an inspection by its surveyor and to share the findings with the resident for use by his private contractor. It also advised the resident that he could submit a claim under the building insurance for the interior damage and provided the necessary information to do so. In recognition of the time and effort the resident had spent pursuing the matter, the landlord offered £100 compensation.
On 25 July 2024 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 because the leak was ongoing, and he was unhappy with the level of compensation that the landlord offered.
On 3 September 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said that it had competed repairs to the balconies which it said had resolved the leak. It upheld the stage 2 complaint. It acknowledged that the leak caused damage to the resident’s flat and distress and discomfort to his family. It apologised and reiterated that the resident could submit a claim to its insurer for the damage to his property. It said that any damage to his personal items, such as furniture and clothes, would need to be referred to his contents insurance provider. It offered the resident £100 for the delays, distress and inconvenience while the repair was outstanding. It said that it would continue to monitor the repair that it said it had completed, to ensure that it had resolved the leak.
On 22 October 2024 the landlord completed repairs to the balconies of the flats above the resident’s flat. The following day, the landlord emailed the resident and said that it would arrange the remedial work in his flat. On 26 November 2024 the landlord sent the resident a follow up complaint response. It acknowledged in this response that it had provided incorrect information in its stage 2 response, where it said that it had repaired the leak. In addition to this it recognised that it had incorrectly advised the resident that it would complete repairs to his flat. It clarified that, as the resident was a leaseholder, the landlord was not responsible for repairs within his flat. The landlord reiterated that the resident could submit a claim to its insurer for the damage to his flat. The landlord offered the resident £800 in compensation, comprising:
1. £200 that it offered the resident in its responses to the complaint at stages 1 and 2.
2. £100 for providing incorrect information in the stage 2 response.
3. £100 for providing incorrect information regarding the completion of remedial work to the resident’s flat.
4. £400 for further delays in completion of the repair, poor communication, and the impact of this on the resident and his family.
The resident referred his complaint to us for investigation. He was unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. He explained that the landlord had failed to repair the leak within a reasonable time, resulting in excessive damage to his property. The resident requested £30,000 in compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his family’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
The resident said in his complaint that he had been contacting the landlord for more than 3 years about the leak. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. In view of the time periods involved in this case, this investigation has not considered any specific events prior to 2023. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint the resident made in May 2024.

The landlord’s response to the leak in the resident’s property.

In accordance with the terms of the lease, the resident is responsible for repairs within his flat. The landlord is responsible for the main structure of the building and the walls and structures separating the flats from communal areas.
The landlord’s leaseholder handbook advises that if a resident experiences a leak from another property within the building, they should contact the landlord. The handbook states that the landlord will investigate and take appropriate action to stop the leak. If the leak originates from a tenanted property, the landlord will complete the repairs.
The resident reported a leak to the landlord on 20 October 2023. Repair records show that the landlord’s contractor attended on 24 October 2023 and recommended an investigation into the balconies of the 2 flats above. Following this recommendation, the landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property on 12 February 2024 and reiterated the need for further investigation into the cause of the leak.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out different response times depending on the category of the repair. For issues posing an immediate health and safety risk, the landlord will attend within 24 hours to make the situation safe. For repairs that negatively impact access to utilities but do not pose an immediate safety threat, the landlord aims to attend within 7 days. For non-urgent works that pose no immediate threat and may require substantial repairs, the target timescale for completion is 28 working days.
Following the resident’s report of the leak the landlord failed to take prompt action to stop the leak or complete a repair within any of the target timeframes set out in its repairs policy. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in the repair. It explained that difficulties in gaining access to the flats above contributed to the delay, alongside its own failure to progress the repair appropriately. The landlord’s decision to uphold the complaint was reasonable. It failed to complete the repair to address the leak for 12 months. While it faced difficulties obtaining access to the flats above during those 12 months, it was aware of access issues from December 2023 and did not take action to ensure it could access the flats above sooner.
Following the report about the repair in October 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord provided regular updates to the resident. Given the impact of the leak on the resident’s flat, the lack of communication was unreasonable and contributed to the distress he experienced. As a result, the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates after reporting the leak in October 2023 before he escalated the matter through a formal complaint in May 2024.
In its stage 1 complaint response dated May 2024, the landlord confirmed that it would complete the repair shortly and committed to keeping the resident updated. However, despite this assurance, it did not complete the repair for another 5 months. In July 2024 the resident chased the landlord for an update, and it advised him that it was awaiting approval of a quote. The landlord advised the resident to follow up with it again within a week for more information. This response was unreasonable, as it placed the burden on the resident to continue chasing for updates, which he had already been doing since October 2023. It also contradicted the landlord’s commitment to proactively update the resident and demonstrated ongoing poor communication. The landlord’s failure to follow through on the commitments it made in its response to the complaint resulted in the resident spending further time and effort pursuing it for updates.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord incorrectly stated that it had repaired the leak. In its follow-up response to the resident in November 2024, the landlord apologised for this inaccuracy, which was appropriate. It also acknowledged that it provided incorrect information regarding the remedial works to the resident’s flat. It clarified that its earlier advice, that the resident could submit a claim to the building insurer for the interior damage, was correct.
The resident confirmed that the leak caused internal damage to his property, including damp and mould. The landlord’s leaseholder handbook states that a resident may claim through the building insurance if any damage is caused to their property by structural defects. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to his flat was in line with this. In addition, the landlord clarified that any damage to personal belongings, such as furniture, should be claimed through the resident’s own contents insurance, which is also in accordance with the information provided in its leaseholder guidance.
The resident informed both the landlord and us that he paid for remedial repairs to his property to address the damage caused by the leak. He also informed us that he submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurer, which he said was not accepted.The resident has not produced evidence that the building insurer has declined his claims. He explained that the current insurer said the damage did not occur during the period of cover. In those circumstances, the resident is responsible to make a claim with the insurer that was covering the property at the time the damage occurred. If the later insurer has declined the claim, it would be open to the resident to contact the insurer who was on cover at the time the damage was caused. While we cannot comment on or assess the insurer’s decision, we can assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to his flat from the leak. We have found that the information that the landlord provided, advising the resident to submit a claim to the insurer, was appropriate and in line with its procedure.
On 26 November 2024 the landlord issued its follow up response to the resident’s complaint. It apologised again for the delays in completing the repair and offered the resident a total of £800 compensation.
We generally consider it to be poor complaint handling when a landlord makes an offer of compensation after the conclusion of the complaints process. This is because it indicates that the landlord did not fully use the formal complaints procedure to provide a resolution. However, in this case, the landlord recognised service failures shortly after completing the repair and acknowledged that its stage 2 complaint response had not appropriately addressed the extent of the delay. It subsequently made a compensation offer that reflected the full duration of time taken to complete the repair, which demonstrated a willingness to put things right, albeit outside of the formal process.
When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures as well as our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. To be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process.
2. To put things right.
3. c. To learn from outcomes.
The £800 compensation offered by the landlord would have been considered a fair and proportionate remedy for the distress and inconvenience caused by the 12 month delay in it completing the repair, up until the landlord carried out the repair in October 2024.
However, less than 3 months after the landlord completed the repair, the resident reported to it on 6 January 2025 that the leak had reoccurred. Although the landlord took some steps to act fairly, by acknowledging the delay and offering compensation, this short timeframe between repair and recurrence of the leak demonstrates that the landlord ultimately failed to put things right.
In light of the above we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak. While a repair was carried out in October 2024, it was ultimately ineffective, as the resident reported a recurrence of the leak less than 3 months later. This indicates that the landlord failed to fully resolve the issue and caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident. It is also likely to have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to address the problem effectively.
As a result, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,100 in compensation. This figure includes the £800 already offered by the landlord and considers both the distress and inconvenience caused by the 12 month delay in completing the initial repair, and the additional impact resulting from the recurrence of the leak shortly afterwards. The amount reflects our compensation guidance for cases where there has been a serious and ongoing impact on the resident, and where the landlord has failed to provide an effective resolution.
We acknowledge that leaks can be difficult to resolve and may involve a degree of trial and error. Water ingress issues are often complex, and initial repairs may not always fully address the root cause. Nevertheless, when a landlord receives further reports of a leak following a repair, we expect it to act promptly to reassess the issue. Particularly as in this case the landlord said in its response that it would monitor the repair to ensure that it had effectively resolved the leak.
The resident informed us at the start of this investigation that, as of April 2025, the leak remains ongoing and that he has received no updates from the landlord regarding the repair. Because the current leak was reported after the landlord issued its final complaint response, we cannot assess its handling of this latest report. However, it is clear from recent discussions with the resident that he remains dissatisfied due to both the continued leak and the lack of communication from the landlord. The landlord has since advised that scaffolding has now been erected to allow access for inspection and repair. We have made an order in relation to the landlord’s communication with the resident about the ongoing repair to the leak.
The resident has said that he is seeking £30,000 compensation because he and his family have suffered with the leak for 4 years and he has spent time, money and effort into repairing the damage. Our assessment is, however, that the landlord fairly signposted the resident to the buildings insurer, and we have seen no evidence that such a claim has been made and declined with the current or previous (building) insurer(s). If the building insurer declines the claim, then the resident could ask the landlord to pass the claim to its liability insurer to consider. At this stage, we have not seen evidence (a) of a loss of £30,000 (b) was caused by the landlord’s maladministration; and (c) that the resident mitigated his loss (d) that the resident has tried to make a claim to the building insurer, but it has declined it. Therefore, it would not be fair in all the circumstances for us to ask the landlord to pay the financial loss.
Based on this, it is our finding that at this stage, the compensation of £1,100 that we have ordered fairly reflects the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble experienced by the resident due to the landlord’s failure to address the issue effectively and within a reasonable timeframe following the report of the repair in October 2023.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the leak into the resident’s property.

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Pay the resident £1,100 compensation. This is inclusive of the £800 that the landlord previously offered to the resident if this has not already been paid to him. The additional £300 compensation that we have ordered should be paid directly to the resident.
2. Contact the resident in writing to provide a detailed update regarding the ongoing leak repair. This update must include:
  1. A clear description of the repairs the landlord intends to carry out to resolve the leak, including the specific areas affected and the type of work planned.
  2. A target date or timeframe for when the repair work is expected to be completed, with an explanation of any factors that may affect this schedule (e.g. access issues, contractor availability, weather conditions).
  3. A mutually agreed communication plan, confirming how frequently the resident will receive updates during the repair process.
3. Confirm to this Service once the compensation payment has been made to the resident. The landlord must also provide a copy of the written update sent to the resident regarding the ongoing repair.

Recommendations

The landlord may wish to provide the resident with the details of the building’s insurers dating back to 2021. That way he can make a claim to the insurer on cover at the time he says the damage was caused.